Cases: Deadlines

Deadlines/Paralegals: Prevailing Party Under Brown Act And Political Reform Act Fee-Shifting Statutes Had Fees And Paralegal Fees Stricken From Costs Award

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Paralegal Time

    Reason Was Failure to File a Noticed Motion or Submit Costs Memo With an Affidavit.        Arth v. Raine, Case No. C071303 (3d Dist. Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished) is a somber reminder to follow Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 dictates when seeking attorney’s and paralegal fees under statutory fee-shifting provisions.      […]

Deadlines/Prevailing Party/Reasonableness Of Fees: Fee Award To Defendants Affirmed Based On Waiver And Failure To Provide Reporter’s Transcript Of Fee Hearing

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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      Pladott v. Blankstein, Case No. B250097 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 4, 2014) (unpublished) involved a plaintiff “hit” with attorney’s fees and costs by defense, with plaintiff arguing that the existence of a cross-complaint meant the postjudgment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

Deadlines: Trial Court Had Jurisdiction To Amend Statement Of Decision To Include Attorney’s Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff

Cases: Deadlines

  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.

Deadlines/Section 1717: Party Seeking Contractual Fees Need Not File Costs Memorandum In Addition To Noticed Motion For Purposes Of Seeking Fees

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Civil Rights/Deadlines/Retainer Agreements: In A Wild One, FEHA Plaintiffs Garner $542,142.50 Fee/$10,642.50 Cost Award Despite Fee Motion Being Filed Two Years Down The Line

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  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

Deadlines/Judgment Enforcement/Special Fee Shifting Statute (Elder Abuse): California Supreme Court “Splits The Baby” On Deciding If Appellate Fees For Elder Abuse And Fraudulent Transfer Claims Are Subject To Deadline Of Being Claimed Before Judgmen

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Common Fund/Deadlines/Probate: Trust Beneficiaries Seeking Fees Under Common Fund Doctrine Should Have Been Allowed Something

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Probate

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

Deadlines: Ninth Circuit Dismisses Appeal From Attorney’s Fees Order Because No Separate Judgment Document Needed To Trigger Running Of Appeals Period

Cases: Deadlines

  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

Scroll to Top