Across-The-Board Fee Reductions, Option-Based 998 Offers, And State Bar Probation Issues Are Under Review. Here are some attorney‘s fees issues pending for review before the California Supreme Court: 1. Cash v. County of Los Angeles, S 291827, 111 Cal.App.5th 74 – – whether a trial court’s across-the-board reduction in fees triggers heightened scrutiny of the […]
. . . Although The Parties Are Free To Allocate Costs Differently Under Their Settlement. The California Supreme Court in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. S280598 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 20, 2025) (published) decided that CCP § 998 offers do apply to pretrial settlements, rather than just judgments or arbitration awards, for
Cert Was Granted On April 22, 2024 In A Fourth Circuit Case. In Lackey v. Stinnie, 77 F.4th 200 (4th Cir. 2023), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in an en banc opinion held that a civil rights plaintiff winning a preliminary injunction, but not securing a final judgment, might be a prevailing party
These Are The Two Civil Cases With Fee Issues Currently Pending Before The State Supreme Court; Plus We Update Our Year End 2022 Review Of K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. Decision. On October 27, 2022, Shanna did a nice post on a lengthy discovery sanctions case. That matter was accepted for review and
Only One That We Could See. To keep readers posted on what is pending in the California Supreme Court as far as fee issues, we only found this pending matter as of year end 2022: Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., S273802. (B309408; 75 Cal.App.5th 365; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20STCV25987.) Petition for review
California Supreme Court Denied Review, But Depublished On Its Own Motion. On June 10, 2020 and July 1, 2020, we posted on Doe v. Regents, 51 Cal.App.5th 531 (2020), where the 2/6 DCA reversed denial of CCP § 1021.5 fees to a UCSB student who successfully obtained reversal of an interim suspension and reinstatement
Particular Question Dealt With Substantial Supersedeas Bond Premiums and Interest. On January 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on an appellate costs issue, in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, No. 20-334 (U.S.), to wit: “Whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit alone has held, district courts “lack[]
Siry Departed From Opposite Conclusion Reached by the Fifth District in Switzer v. Wood. On March 4, 2020, we posted on Siry Investment v. Farkhondehpour, a 2/2 DCA published opinion concluding that a trial judge could not award treble damages and attorney’s fees under Penal Code section 496(c), parting company with the contrary conclusion
Case Centers Upon The Meaning Of “All The Expenses Of The Proceeding.” On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari with respect to a Federal Circuit opinion in order to wrestle with this issue: “Whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. Section 145 encompasses the personnel
SCOTUS Disagreed With Eleventh Circuit, Following The Contrary Conclusion By Three Other Circuit Courts. United States Supreme Court On January 8, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Culbertson v. Berryhill, No. 17-773 (U.S. Supreme Court Jan. 8, 2019), which confronted this issue in the social security benefits area: “Whether fees
