Also, CCP § 473 Motion to Vacate Denial Order Was Timely, But Mandatory Relief Not Available And Discretionary Relief Properly Denied For Lack Of Diligence. Grinberg v. Kalili, Case No. B245899 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 10, 2014) (unpublished) originated as a dispute over the suitability of a $158,000 Ferrari, with the plaintiff […]
Where Reasonableness of Fees Involved, RT Is a Likely Necessity; Cost Memo Was Timely Filed. Pladott v. Blankstein, Case No. B250097 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 4, 2014) (unpublished) involved a plaintiff “hit” with attorney’s fees and costs by defense, with plaintiff arguing that the existence of a cross-complaint meant the postjudgment orders
Didn’t Matter That New Trial Motion 60-Day Deadline Was Exceeded. In a dispute between two marine transportation companies over charges for tugboat services under a series of contracts, plaintiff prevailed and was awarded contractual attorney’s fees in American Marine Corp. v. Harley Marine Services, Inc., Case No. A133283 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug.
Nothing in Statues Require Costs Memo Filing, With CRC 3.1702 Governing. In ruling on a first impression issue on the published level, Kaufman v. Diskeeper Corp., Case No. B 248151 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 21, 2014) (published) decided that a party seeking contractual fees under Civil Code section 1717 need not, in
Extraordinary Circumstances Justified Noncompliance With Deadlines, And Client/Attorney Agreement On How To Divide Statutory Fee Awards Did Not Violate Any Ethical Prohibitions. Blythe v. County of Riverside, Case No. E055186 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 16, 2014) (unpublished) is a wild FEHA fee/costs award case encompassing deadline, standing, and retainer agreement divisions of
Answers: “No” on Elder Abuse; “Yes” on Fraudulent Transfer. In Conservatorship of McQueen, Case No. S209376 (Cal. Supreme Court July 7 2014), the California Supreme Court faced an interesting timing issue as to when appellate fees must be filed for and sought in a post-judgment enforcement situation. Specifically, the plaintiff prevailed on both elder
CRC Rules on Filing Fee Motions Did Not Govern Probate Proceedings. The overall, convoluted probate dispute in Sheen v. Sheen, Case No. B243847 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 1, 2014) (unpublished)—although colorful—does not involve extended discussion on the facts, although the appellate court did reverse lower court failures to award attorney’s fees to beneficiaries given
No Prejudice or Misidentification Found to Opposite Side through Clerical Error. Plaintiff in Pladott v. Garbell, Case No. B247876 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 11, 2014) (unpublished) appealed a denial of a motion to strike a costs memorandum filed against him by the defense. The facts were that the defense timely filed the
Written Fee Order Was Enough of a Trigger, So Appeal Was Late. The Ninth Circuit in S.L. v. Upland Unified School Dist., Case No. 12-55715 (9th Cir. Apr. 2, 2014) (published) had to decide an appeals timing issue and, in doing so, provided a graphic “practice tip” for federal court practitioners/litigants desiring to
Go From First Date of Entry, Said Reviewing Court. Okay, for you procedural pros or interested readers, you will like our post on Olla v. Wagner, Case No. B239702 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 5, 2014) (unpublished). The lower court entered a post judgment minute order awarding fees on April 2, 2012
