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
First District, Division Four Affirms Fee/Costs Award on Appeal. In our category “Cases: Settlement,” we have reviewed past decisions where parties have won substantial fee/costs awards after reserving the issue for future determination as part of a settlement in an underlying case. The next opinion is one arising from the settlement of a lawsuit
Sixth District’s Holding Based On Furthering Client Protections Under MFAA. The Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq., is a statutory scheme by which a client can attempt to inexpensively arbitrate fee disputes with an attorney without resorting first to formal litigation. For those of you wanting more
Fourth District, Division Three Determined that Arbitrator’s Award Was Governed By Arbitration, Not Reference, Principles. In our July 15, 2008 post on Patel v. Sagar, we discussed a situation where the Second District affirmed an arbitrator’s fee award based on the notion that the arbitrator has considerable leeway to apply “equitable principles” in awarding
Using “Splitting Cause of Action” Principles, Second District, Division Two Rules That Plaintiff Must Seek Fees In the First Lawsuit. The next case reminds all litigators that courts dislike duplicative litigation where litigants seek to recoup fees that are more appropriately sought in a prior action. That is exactly what happened in Cohen
Fourth District, Division Three Dismisses Clients’ Appeal. Clients filed a petition for attorney’s fee arbitration pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq. They won, with their Former Attorney ordered to return $150,000 in fees and $3,524 in attorney’s fees. Former Attorney was not happy and petitioned to vacate the award,
Sixth District So Rules In Sustaining Fee Award For Some Work By Winning Litigant’s Attorneys Before and After Arbitration Proceeding. Defendant suffered an adverse arbitration award of $67,089.16 to plaintiff for failing to pay plaintiff his value in a health center pursuant to a second buy-out agreement. The arbitrator awarded arbitration costs/fees, but ordered
