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 Prime Associates Group, LLC v. NAMA Holdings, LLC, Case No. B226167 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 19, 2012) (unpublished) is a case that upheld a substantial attorney’s fees award, drawing a distinction in the process between postarbitration and arbitration proceedings.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
Fee-Shifting Provision in Elder Abuse Law Vetted An Important Public Policy. The Fifth District in Bickel v. Sunrise Assisted Living, Case No. F062443 (5th Dist. May 21, 2012) (certified for publication) involved a plaintiff suing defendant assisted living facility for elder abuse. Plaintiff entered into a residency agreement with an arbitration clause, with
In Cinel v. Christopher, 203 Cal.App.4th 759 (2012), the Second District, Division 1 affirmed a trial court’s order refusing to confirm as an award the arbitrator’s termination of the action for nonpayment of fees of several of the defendants. One party returned to the trial court to compel arbitration, arguing he had paid
Court of Appeal Was Not Pleased With Appellant’s Inconsistent Positions. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine aimed at preventing litigants from taking two totally inconsistent positions in different phases of litigation–or prevent “playing fast and loose” with the judicial system or “gaming the system” by taking such inconsistent positions. (Uhrich v. State Farm
“Each Side Bear Own Costs” Appellate Directive Did Not Bar Later Fee Request. Tenzera, Inc. v. Osterman, Case No. B228189 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 19, 2012) (partially published; fee discussion not published) presented a situation where, after remand from a prior appellate opinion in the same case, a trial court denied attorney’s
One Can Prevail For Purposes of Getting Postarbitration Fees Even If the Arbitrator Awarded No Fees For Arbitration Work. Justice Ikola, on behalf of a 3-0 panel in Toal v. Tardif, Case No. G044823 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 29, 2012) (unpublished), drew an important distinction for parties involved in arbitration:
Messy Arbitration Case With Assignment of Rights Means Trouble. Liner Grode et al. v. Rotondo, Case No. B22106 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 22, 2012) (unpublished) was an appeal from a messy corporate governance/derivative arbitration in which no one clearly prevailed. However, the arbitrator–because equity can be used–did award fees to
However, Attorney Did Prevail in Lawsuit, So Costs Should Have Been Awarded. Attorney sued a former client in a dispute over attorney’s fees for services provided in an arbitration. Attorney, who replaced another attorney in an owner-contractor construction defect dispute, did win a $1,034,297, plus $40,125 attorney’s fees, award from an arbitrator, although
