Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Fee/Costs Award Based on Retaliation Jury Verdict Against City of Anaheim. In our category “Civil Rights,” we have surveyed many FEHA fee/costs awards because the statute is pro-plaintiff oriented. Here is one where there were both FEHA and non-FEHA claims, but no allocation was necessary because the claims […]
Second District, Division 5 Applies “Inconsistent Position” Doctrine in Challenge to Allocation of Referee Fees. What follows is an interesting application of the judicial estoppel doctrine in the referee fee allocation area. This doctrine is a good one to have in any litigator’s arsenal, especially in this age of modern litigation where litigants and
Court Discusses Substantive Fee Shifting Statute, Lodestar Factors, and Non-Cost Expense Reimbursement Issues in Recent Decision. EEOC v. Boot, Case No. 07-CV-95-LLR (N.D. Iowa Feb. 9, 2010 Order), is an unusual decision where a United States district judge awarded $4,560,285.11 in fees and costs (broken down as $4,004,371.65 in fees, $463,071.25 in “non-cost”
Lower Court Did Not Err in Refusing to Award Costs, Says Fourth District, Division 3. In Helmy v. Assaf, Case No. G041883 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 4, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiffs achieved limited success in a declaratory relief action over the membership and control of the board of directors of a nonprofit named the
One-Side Legal Costs and Fees Provision Was Part of the Problem Most cases we report about involve an award of attorney's fees, or the denial of an award. But we cast our net widely. In the next case, an arbitration provision was held to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable, in part because it had a
Second District, Division 3 Distinguishes Other Costs Apportionment Decisions. In Fennessy v. DeLeuw-Cather Corp., 218 Cal.App.3d 1192 (1990), the appellate court held that when a prevailing party incurs costs jointly with other parties who remain in the litigation and seeks recovery of costs during the pendency of the litigation, that party may recover only
Liquidated Damages Clause Found Valid; Fees/Costs Award Sustained Also. This next decision should be of substantive interest to both developers and our readers interested in fee issues. Although unpublished, Beck Properties, Inc. v. Hameed, Case No. C058279 (Dec. 11, 2009) decided that an anti-speculation clause in a purchase agreement between a developer and
Fifth District, in Published Decision, Supports Broad Equitable Powers of Probate Courts. Probate contests are often donnybrooks between different beneficiaries or relatives. This next one was certainly that. However, the losing minority beneficiaries caused the trustee to expend lots of attorney’s fees, which were recouped when the probate court ruled they could be obtained
Second District, Division 4 Affirms Costs Award in Favor of Prevailing Party. In Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Neue Sentimental Film A.G., Case No. B203163 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 2, 2009) (unpublished), prevailing party defendant in a dismissed contractual breach action obtained a routine costs award of $14,697.58, which was appealed by the losing
Fourth District, Division 1 So Rules in Unpublished Decision. In Jameson v. Desta, Case No. D053089 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 23, 2009) (certified for partial publication, but pertinent part for this post unpublished), the Fourth District, Division 1 held that paralegal fees are not recoverable as “costs on appeal” under California Rules of
