Dealer Did A Smart Thing Here In Apportioning Fees Between Claims. Tun v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Case No. D070447 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 7, 2016) (published) is a nice illustration of a smart move that a prevailing party undertook under a fee-shifting statute in its fee petition papers. That move was […]
Defense Prior Efforts To Settle Contained Unreasonable Extraneous Terms And Case Was Hard Fought, Justifying A $575 Hourly Lodestar Rate. When you try to settle a case, make sure you do not ask for extraneous extractions of an unreasonable or unallowable nature. The failure to do so doomed the defense efforts to challenge
Dealt With Appealability Of Denial Of Fee Award To Plaintiff Winning Preliminary Injunction Under California Homeowner Bill Of Rights. In our post of July 30, 2016, we discussed the unpublished decision in Sese v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which ruled that a plaintiff winning a preliminary injunction under the California Homeowner Bill of
Borrower Appealed From A Nonappealable Interlocutory Order. In Monterossa v. Superior Court, 237 Cal.App.4th 747, 751 (2015) [discussed in our June 14, 2015 post], the Third District decided that a borrower obtaining preliminary, rather permanent, injunctive relief under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights may be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees
All Of The Consumer Statutes Required Bad Faith, Found Not To Exist And Affirmed Under Appellate Abuse Of Discretion Standard. Above: chiropractic adjustment of horse. Wikpedia. Photographer: Dr. Dennis Eschbach. Wikipedia Creative Commons License. In Libman v. Bondarev Chiropractic, Inc., Case No. B259498 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 7, 2016) (unpublished), personal
#1: Choi v. Mario Badescu Skin Care, Case No. B257480 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 29, 2016) (Unpublished). Caption: “Testing cosmetics. Washington D.C. July 10, 1937. The department of Agriculture is making tests everyday in order to get cosmetics under the Pure Food and Drug Act, Mrs. C.W. West seated is helping Mrs.
Predicate for Fee Entitlement Evaporated. In our June 14, 2015 post, we discussed the Third District’s decision in Monterossa v. Superior Court, 237 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 (2015), which decided that attorney’s fees were properly awarded to a borrower obtaining a preliminary injunction against lender “dual tracking” under Civil Code section 2924.12(i) (the Homeowner
Allocation—Artefex LP v. Bushman, Case No. B260737 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 17, 2015) (Unpublished). In this one, plaintiffs won $15,000 on a contract breach claim after voluntarily dismissing tort claims, with the trial judge then awarding $191,256 in fees and $11,778.37 in costs based on a fees clause. The 2/6 DCA reversed
Challenge To Reasonableness Of Hourly Rate And Work Performed Rebuffed. California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (sometimes dubbed a “lemon law” in car/RV cases) has a fee-shifting provision which requires the trial court to engage in a little bit different analysis, but not really that different under the lodestar method: determine the actual time
No Costs Allocation Between Plaintiffs Required, 998 Offer Shifted Expert Witness Fees, And Prosecution Of CLRA Claim At Trial Was Not In Good Faith. Foss v. San Antonio Community Hospital, Case No. E057236 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 28, 2015) (unpublished) was a case prosecuted by plaintiffs against medically affiliated defendants under various
