Second District, Division 8 Found Client Waived MFAA Nonbinding Arbitration Through Malpractice Allegations in AAA Cross-Demand. Many times in the past, we have examined the interplay between contractual arbitration and the mandatory fee arbitration act (MFAA, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200). Basically, under the recent California Supreme Court’s opinion in Schatz v. Allen […]
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Alleged Promise No Basis For Vacating the Award. The opening in Garcia v. Easton, Case No. G040111 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 30, 2009) (unpublished) summarizes well what was at stake: “In this case, we are called upon to resolve an issue we never thought we’d have to address:
Ninth Circuit Apparently Agrees, Also. We would like to thank Hon. Lawrence C. Waddington (Ret.), former Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who is now a neutral with JAMS, for contributing an April 21, 2009 post on enBanc, the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s blog, about a recent Second Circuit decision that has fee
Result in Recent Unpublished Decision Shows How Attorney’s Fees May Eclipse the Amount in Controversy. Our Mission Statement reflects that attorney’s fees are frequently the tail that wags the litigation dog, meaning that recovery of fees may be essential to a prevailing party trying to vindicate its interest in a case with an amount
Third District Distinguishes Its Facts From Otay in Unpublished Decision. In California, attorney’s fees are generally not recoverable for interim procedural victories. The “prevailing party,” for purposes of fee recovery, usually must await a final deposition on the merits. However, there are exceptions. For example, Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway, 158
Second District Panel Splits 2-1 on Whether Contractual Clause Allowed for Fee Recovery From Post-Arbitration Judicial Proceeding Win Before the “Dispute” Was Finally Resolved. The next case illustrates how even appellate jurists will come to different conclusions when construing a contractual fees clause where the matter is one for de novo review based on
California Supreme Court Adopts Justice Chin’s Concurring Analysis in Lerner v. Aguilar. Today, the California Supreme Court resolved an interplay between the mandatory fee arbitration act (MFAA, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.) and the California Arbitration Act (CAA, Code Civ. Proc., § 1280 et seq.). In Schatz v. Allen Matkins
First District, Division 3 Affirms Lower Court Award in Favor of Attorney, Including Substantial Fees Award. In our category “Cases: Arbitration,” we have discussed the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq. This allows a client to engage in a nonbinding arbitration with an attorney over a fee
First District, Division 2 Demonstrates Appellate Scrutiny Of Basis For Fee Award. In past posts (see, e.g., our July 15, 2008 post on Patel v. Sagar), we have reviewed appellate decisions involving scrutiny of arbitration awards. Several decisions have affirmed arbitrator fee awards even though there was no clear basis, either by contract or
Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms Fee Award Granted By Arbitrator Under AAA Rule R-44(d). In our category “Cases: Estoppel,” we have reviewed cases holding that Civil Code section 1717 fee recovery is not authorized in regular court actions unless the litigant has actual entitlement to fees, with no award being justified when an opponent
