Trial Judge Awarded A Minimal Award Based On Erroneously Applying CCP § 998 Penalties Of An Unjustified Nature. In our December 6, 2018 post, we discussed the then unpublished decision of Etcheson v. FLA US, LLC, Case No. D072793, where the 4/1 DCA reversed about a $2,637 fee/costs award by the trial judge after […]
Lower Court Improperly Denied Request In Finding Statute Only Applied To Filing Of An Action. In Holloway v. Alliance Environmental Group, Case No. E066365 (4th Dist., Div. Dec. 20, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff was defensed after a 7-week jury trial which she brought against a testing company and abatement company in a residential asbestos abatement
Also, Denial Of Trial Transcript Expenses Reversed Because They Were Compensable Under Song-Beverly Act Costs/Fee-Shifting Provision. Although occurring in the civil rights context, we foresaw in our December 20, 2015 post on Kerkeles v. City of San Jose, 243 Cal.App.4th 88, 102-104 (2015) that it would have much more significance in other substantive areas.
Trial Judge Improperly Imposed CCP § 998 Sanctions When Offer Was Improper, Such That Cut-Off Fee Determination Was An Abuse of Discretion. In Etcheson v. FCA US LLC, Case No. D072793 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 6, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a “lemon law” action relating to a $40,000 purchase of a 2010 Chrysler
Fifth Circuit Sided With Two Other Circuits That Fees Can Be Denied In Unusual Circumstances, With Shocking Nature Of The Request Plus Conspiracy To Manufacture The Claim Solidifying The Fee Denial. Davis v. Credit Bureau of the South, No. 17-41136 (5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018) (per curiam) demonstrates how federal courts, even under a
Size Of The Reduction Obviously Bothered Appellate Court, Although Its Statements On Level Of Detail Of State Court Fee Award Seems To Point Toward Adoption Of More Detailed Federal Court Analysis. McCullough v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. D073330 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 9, 2018) (unpublished) is an interesting “lemon law” case where
Fee Award Based On Interim Success Sustained. We have posted earlier on the sequence of events in Sese v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. C083724 (3d Dist. Oct. 31, 2018) (unpublished). Earlier, the borrower had obtained an appellate decision determining that HBOR authorized an award of legal fees to borrowers who obtained a
Although More Fees Potentially Allowable Under Statutory Inhabitability Claim, Jury Did Not Base Its Verdict On The Statute Such That Contractually Capped Amount Was The Proper Award. This next case involves an intersection between the parties’ contractually capped fee recovery under lease agreements and potentially more expansive damages under a statute allowing recovery for
Car Purchasers “Gambling” On Other Remedies Other Than Repurchase Might Have Repercussions – No Fee Recovery! This case counsels that car purchasers and their attorneys in lemon law cases (equally applicable to situations involving consumer items other than cars as well) need to carefully think about rejecting a repurchase capitulation by a car manufacturer
Appealing Defendant Picked Its Spots On Appeal, Awarded As Being Selective! This next case is an illustration where a non-prevailing defendant on peripheral claims appealed selectively on an adverse attorney’s fees and costs award, handsomely awarded by being discreet in what it appealed. In Ajis v. Foreman Financial, Inc., Case No. B280208 (2d
