Fifth District Agrees With East West Bank Interpretation Of The Issue. Glass Windows. Carol M. Highsmith, photograph. May 12, 2015. St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church in Wheeling, West Virginia. Library of Congress. In Atascadero Glass v. David A. Bush, Inc., Case No. F071426 (5th Dist. Feb. 14, 2017) (unpublished), the Fifth District […]
Subcontractor Assignee Did Recover $282,915 In Fees/$35,859.85 In Costs Based On Compensatory Award Of $220,045. In Mako Investments, LLC v. West Coast Contractors of Nevada, Case No. C073867 (3d Dist. Oct. 3, 2016) (unpublished), general contractor (West Coast) and subcontractor (Zephyr, which assigned its claim to an assignee) got into a dispute over
Interpretation of Retention Prompt Payment Statute At Issue. On December 5 and 18, we posted on the 2/1 DCA’s United Rigger decision, which among other things split company with another sister intermediate appellate court on the interpretation of the retention prompt payment statute and accordingly reversed a $150,000 fee award to the then
Subcontractor Hit With $150,000 Fee Award Below, Gets A Reversal Of Fortune—Merits Reversal Of Retention Claim Meant Subcontractor Now Gets To Seek Fees For Being the Winner On Appeal! Here you may see what’s very rare, The world turn’d upside down; A tree and castle in the air, A man walk on his
Although Fees Are Mandatory, Prevailing Party Determination Is Threshold Call For Trial Judge Under Prompt Payment Statutes. James L. Harris Printing & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case No. C072169 (3d Dist. Aug. 27, 2015) (published) was dealing with fee-shifting provisions in some prompt payment statutes, specifically, Business and Professions Code
Fee Entitlement Was Present, But Reducing Request For Another Party No Abuse Of Discretion. Esparza v. PulteGroup, Inc. (Centex), Case No. D063736 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 14, 2015) (unpublished) was a construction defect/personal injury action by several residential homeowners against Centex (which subsequently merged into the PulteGroup), which in turn cross-complained against
Same Result From Decision Surveyed in Our January 28, 2015 Post. On January 28, 2015, we posted on Rio School District, a Second District, Division 6 decision where a substantial attorney’s fees award was remanded for redetermination after the appellate court determined that an unclean hands defense was legally not cognizable under Public
Appellate Court Ordered Apportionment to Limit Fee Award to Those Incurred Solely to the Section 7107 Claim, Meaning $3.85 Million Fee Recovery Went POOF! For Now. In FTR International, Inc. v. Rio School Dist., Case No. B238618 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 27, 2015) (partially published; fee discussion published), school district and its
Only County Entitled to Additional Fees/Costs Over Penal Sum Based on Clear Terms in Payment Bond. In Granite Constr. Co. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co., Case No. C066759 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished), surety under a payment bond lost an exoneration argument at trial based on a settlement agreement which had a
However, Appellate Court Found Small “Fees on Fees” Award To Be Abuse of Discretion. In a third round of appeals, P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Oakland, Case No. D060760 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court considered whether the trial judge properly fixed attorneys’ fees under California’s prompt
