However, The Arbitration Advisories Do Not Constitute The Official Position Or Policy Of The State Bar In his blog on California Mediation and Arbitration, co-contributor Marc has posted the list of “Arbitration Advisories” that have been created under the auspices of the Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration of the California State Bar. Though […]
$527 Million of the Award Was Prejudgment Interest/Attorney’s Fees. In March 2011, Starbucks prematurely ended a contract with Kraft Foods which was allowing the food company to sell bagged Starbucks coffee in grocery stores. Earlier, Kraft rejected Starbucks’ $750 million offer to end the arrangement. The matter went to arbitration, with Starbucks countering
Appellate Court Did Not Find Unenforceability, But Framed A Choice Based on Unequal Bargaining Leverage. Our local Santa Ana appellate court, in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Rylaarsdam, has sent a message in our opinion about attorney retainer agreements containing mandatory arbitration provisions. Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine, Case No. G047306 (4th
Also, Hong Kong Law Was Consonant With California Reciprocity Law on Fees. Dampier v. Solar & Environmental Technologies Corp. (SETC), Case No. G045805 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 8, 2013) (unpublished) (authoring justice: Justice Rylaarsdam), involves a case which co-contributors Marc and Mike were involved in, up to right before the
Cannot Leapfrog Fee Clauses in Other Entites’ Agreements into a Fee Award. Leapfrog. NYC. c1908-22. Library of Congress. Marik v. University Village, LLC, Case No. B247171 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 3, 2013) (unpublished) goes to show you that glaring arbitration results will be vacated. In this one, the appellate court
Court Can Award 1717 Fees With Enforceable Limitations–Such As, Did Adverse Party Acted Arbitrarily, Vexatiously, In Bad Faith Or Unreasonably–You Bethca! We like Abbey v. Fortune Drive Associates, LLC, Case No. A135062 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2013) (unpublished) for a lot, if not a couple of, reasons: (1) it talks about
Second District, Division One Disagrees With Contrary Conclusion Reached by First District, Division Two in Kors. After plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against their former attorneys, those attorneys successfully moved to compel arbitration in the pending lawsuit, with the lower court also awarding them $67,930.50 in attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in the
Trial Court Did Not Err in Awarding A Higher Hourly Rate to Attorney Providing Postarbitration Services for Prevailing Client. In Fuchs & Associates, Inc. v. Lesso, Case No. B241384 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 29, 2013) (unpublished), former attorneys sued client to collect a claimed additional $647,688 in unpaid fees under a retainer
Holding Somewhat Came to the Same Result as Watson v. Knorr, But Based On Uniquely Worded Settlement Agreement Fees/Cost Clauses. “Like spectators at a sporting event with a beach ball, some litigators manage to keep an action bouncing along in the air indefinitely,” is the beginning sentence in De Sena v. Richert, Case
However, Matter Remanded Because Judicial Confirmation Proceedings Costs Were Recoverable and Erroneously Not Awarded. Watson v. Knorr, Case No. H036430 (6th Dist. May 13, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where plaintiffs won a $1.1 million arbitration award “plus costs under the Code of Civil Procedure.” Plaintiffs never submitted costs issues to the arbitrator,
