Fox v. Vice, Fifth Circuit Case, Is Accepted For Review. On November 1, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fox v. Vice, Case No. 10-114, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal decision that, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a fee award against a civil rights plaintiff and in favor of […]
Fee Eligibility for Establishing Precedent on Challenged Practice is Key Issue. In Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., 184 Cal.App.4th 178 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 28, 2010), attorney’s fees were denied to a plaintiff successfully challenging certain court reporting charges and establishing legal precedent in the process. On August 18, 2010,
Rossa v. D.L. Falk Construction Accepted for Review on August 11, 2010. In Cooper v. Westbrook Torrey Hills, 81 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1300 (2000), the Court of Appeal confirmed that interest paid on sums borrowed to obtain a cash deposit undertaking on appeal were recoverable costs of appeal under California Rule of Court 8.278(d)(1)(F). However,
Preemption Issue Between State and Federal Disability Schemes Under Consideration in Fee Shifting Area For the week of May 10, 2010, the California Supreme Court accepted review of Jankey v. Lee, No. S180890, a former First District, Division 4 decision which we reported on in our February 6, 2010 post (formerly published at 181
Issue Is Whether District Judges Can Enhance Lodestar Based Solely on Quality of Attorney Performance and Results Obtained Under Federal Fee-Shifting Statute. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on an attorney’s fees issues that has generated a split among federal appellate courts on whether district judges can enhance lodestars based solely on
Validity of Retainer Agreement Contractual Arbitration Provisions and Pro Per Attorney Defendant Eligibility for 128.7 Sanctions At Issue. Yesterday, the California Supreme Court heard argument on the following two cases of interest in the fee recovery arena: Schatz v. Allen Matkins Lack Gamble & Mallory LLP, Case No. S150371 (formerly published at 146 Cal.App.4th 674):
Second District Awards About Only a Tenth of Requested Fees Based on Failure to Segregate Services and Comply With California Rules of Court. Here is a new area that we have not yet addressed—attorney’s fees awarded in a conservatorship. As in other substantive areas, it is necessary to provide proper substantiation
High Court to Decide Whether Plaintiff Recovering No Positive Judgment Because of Section 877 Setoff Is Nevertheless the Prevailing Party for Fee/Costs Award Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. In our June 16, 2008 post on Guerrero v. Rodan Termite Control, a recently disseminated First District, Division Three decision, we
