Cases: Arbitration – Page 19 – Cal Attorneys Fees

Arbitration: Broad Non-Appealability Clause In Arbitration Clause Found Unenforceable So Merits Of Arbitration Award Allocating Fees Could Be Considered

December 19, 2013

Fraud, Arbitrator Impartiality, Arbitrator Misconduct, and Arbitrator Exceeding Power Type Claims Could Not Be Found Immune From Review Based On Contractual Provision. In In re: Wal-Mart Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, Case No. 11-17778 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013) (published), a district court confirmed an arbitration award allocating attorney’s fees in a […]

Arbitration/Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Not Appropriate Against Party’s Counsel For Arbitration Actions

November 29, 2013

Party Can Possibly To Exposed For Sanctions, But Not Attorneys Under AAA Rules and CCP § 128.7. Well, here is a case which might bring some solace to attorneys representing clients in AAA arbitrations. Optimal Markets, Inc. v. Salant, Case No. H038571 (6th Dist. Nov. 26, 2013) (published) denied CCP § 128.7

Arbitration: California Committee On Mandatory Fee Arbitration Provides “Arbitration Advisories”

Cases: Arbitration

November 21, 2013

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

Arbitration/In the News . . . . Starbucks To Pay Kraft Foods Spin-Off $2.76 Billion Based On Adverse Arbitration Award

Cases: Arbitration, In The News

November 13, 2013

$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

Arbitration: If Plaintiffs Clients Prove Indigency Where Retainer Agreement Did Not Explain Costs Of Arbitration To Clients, Appellate Court Gave Attorneys A Choice: Pay Unfront Costs Of Arbitration For Clients Or Waive Arbitration

Cases: Arbitration

October 17, 2013

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

Arbitration: Stay Of Litigation Proceedings Did Out Oust Superior Court From Awarding Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Arbitration

October 17, 2013

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

Arbitration: Post-Arbitration Fee Award Not Sustained Because Error Was Glaring In Nature

Cases: Arbitration

October 5, 2013

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

Arbitration/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Interesting Cross-Issue Case–Party Enjoining Arbitration Was Not Adverse Prevailing Party

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

July 31, 2013

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

Arbitration/Prevailing Party: Because Motion To Compel Arbitration In Pending Lawsuit Is Not An “Action” Under Civil Code Section 1717, Attorney’s Fees Award To Successful Compelling Party Was Premature

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

July 8, 2013

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

Arbitration/Lodestar/Prevailing Party: Client Winning Fee Arbitration With “No More Payments Due” Did Prevail And Was Entitled To Post-Arbitration Confirmation/Vacation Fees Of $21,125

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party

June 2, 2013

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