Witness Fees Issue Should Have Been Presented to Arbitrators, Not to Trial Court in Post-Award Confirmation Stage. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Fenandez, Case No. E055058 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 13, 2013) (unpublished) is a lesson for all winners in an arbitration seeking to recoup costs and expenses after prevailing: present the […]
In Selby v. Cingular Wireless LLC, Case No. G045769 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 29, 2013) (unpublished), a plaintiff in a long-running Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CRLA) battle finally lost on a judgment on the pleadings battle, which was affirmed by our local Santa Ana appellate court in a 3-0 opinion authored by
Merits of Ruling Could Not Be Scutinized. Hospitality Marketing Consultants, LLC v. Case, Case No. G046283 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2012) (unpublished) demonstrates why clients and attorneys need to balance expediency of arbitration against the limited review of arbitrator decision-making before agreeing to an arbitration clause or stipulating to consensual arbitration.
You Be The Judge, Recent California Real Property Journal Article Adds More Swill to the Controversy. Okay, folks, there always has been a controversy on the added effectiveness (or expense) associated with ADR alternatives, primarily mediation and arbitration. We can report that even more gas has been added to the fire of this
Moral of the Story …. Be Careful What You Ask For (Or Don’t Ask For). Here is a very interesting arbitration/litigation saga about attorneys and clients bickering over how to divide class action attorney’s fees. It also shows an objecting attorney that you better be careful how you proceed (and the objecting attorney
Party Getting Dismissed Arbitration Proceeding Entitled to Fees. Lakeside Club Villas, Inc. v. LB Property Mgt., Inc., Case No. B236001 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 16, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting case showing how the breadth of a fees clause awarding fees/costs in an arbitration will garner a litigant a fee recovery, even
Compel Arbitration and U.S. Supreme Court Cert Petition Fees Reversed, Based on Frog Creek Partners. It will not come as a surprise that Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 206 Cal.App.4th 515 (1st Dist., Div. 5 2012) will make our Top 20 List at the end of the year. Several appellate
Postarbitration Proceedings Distinct From Arbitration Proceedings For Purposes of Fee Award. Prime Associates Group, LLC v. NAMA Holdings, LLC, Case No. B226167 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 19, 2012) (unpublished) is a case that upheld a substantial attorney’s fees award, drawing a distinction in the process between postarbitration and arbitration proceedings. NAMA
Difference Between This and Frog Creek: Final Award Occurred After Interim Fee Award, So There Was Finality. On May 27, 2012, we reported on the First District, Division 5’s published opinion in Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 2012 Cal.App. LEXIS 625 (2012), where the appellate court concluded that the trial
Parameters of “Discrete Win” Doctrine Probed, With Interim Wins On Petitions To Compel Arbitration Not Determining Eventual Winner Unless Discrete Proceeding Ended Matter. Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Brown, Case No. A129651 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 24, 2012) (certified for publication) is a scholarly opinion considering, in a two party-one contract context
