4/3 DCA Determines That Interim Fights On Arbitration Threshold Issues Gave A Basis For Fees. This next one, Just a Fluke, Inc. v. Litalien, Case No. G058535 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 23, 2021) (unpublished), while convoluted, still shows that potentially arbitrating parties need to make sure they are not going to litigate and […]
After All, The $300 Filing Fee Was Subject To Adjustment By The Arbitrator—Why Tens Of Thousands Of Dollars Expended To Fight Such A Benign Order? The 2/7 DCA, in Metz v. Kavanaugh, Case No. B294388 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 17, 2021) (unpublished), had to deal with an appeal of a superior court order
2/19/21 Unpublished Decision Now Citable For Confirming Wide Arbitrator Discretion In Dealing With A Substantial Fees Request. On February 19, 2021, we posted on Bacall v. Shumway, Case No. B302787 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 18, 2021), which was unpublished at the time. Bacall affirmed an arbitrator’s award of $237,607.25 to a prevailing party
Broad Fee Clauses Were The Bases For The Affirmed Award. In Currency Corp. v. Wertheim, LLC, Case No. B276506 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 2, 2021) (unpublished), Wertheim initiated legal proceedings spanning 15 years, culminating in an arbitration in which it achieved nothing (according to the DCA panel) because part of the award was
We Don’t Necessarily Agree With The Result In This One—But It Does Reflect Deference To Arbitrator Decisions. Bacall v. Shumway, Case No. B302787 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 18, 2021) (unpublished) is an interesting affirmance of an arbitrator’s award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $237,607.25. Although we do not opine often on
$304,894.15 Was The Reallocation Remedy. Ahn v. Sanger, Case Nos. A157260/157935 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 15, 2021) (unpublished) demonstrates the breadth of arbitrators’ remedies as long as they rationally related to the contractual dispute being resolved. There, in an initial arbitration, the Sangers won a contractual dispute against Ahn involving a multi-residential
Client Timely And Properly Rejected Non-Binding Award By Commencing A Trial After Arbitration And Notifying Attorney’s Counsel Of Client’s Intent To Reject The Award. The Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.) recognizes “the disparity in bargaining power in attorney fee matters which favors the attorney in dealings
Plaintiffs Achieved Partial Success In Their Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration, And Fees/Costs Are Not Awardable To Prevailing FEHA Defendant, Pursuant To Gov. Code § 12965(b), Unless The Court Finds Action Was Frivolous, Unreasonable, Or Groundless When Brought, Or The Plaintiff Continued To Litigate After It Became Clearly So. In Humphrey v.
Inconspicuous Nature Of Arbitration Clause Deprived Defendant Of Procedural Due Process, And Denial Of Plaintiff’s Petition Disposed Of The Action Entitling Prevailing Defendant To Attorney Fees Per Civil Code § 1717. In Domestic Linen Supply Co., Inc. v. L J T Flowers, Inc., Case Nos. B292863/B294788 (2d Dist., Div. 6 December 4, 2020) (published),
Attorney Was Notified By The American Arbitration Association That The Error In Applying Defendants’ Fees Had Been Corrected, And The AAA Simply Needed Plaintiff’s Confirmation Of Intent To Proceed. In McCluskey v. Henry, Case No. A158851 (1st Dist., Div. 3 November 2, 2020) (partially published – fees discussion unpublished), plaintiff sued employees of
