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pros or interested readers, you will like our post on Olla v. Wagner, Case No. B239702 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 5, 2014) (unpublished).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 […]
U.S. Supreme Court So Decides, Finding Rule for Statutorily-Based Fee Motions Applied to Contractually-Based Fee Motions Also. On January 15, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 646 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2014). Earlier, this
Legally Erroneous to Deny Fee Request on Untimeliness Ground. In Golden Hill Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v. City of San Diego, Case No. D062203 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 25, 2013) (unpublished), a trial court entered a new judgment following issuance of an earlier appellate remittitur. The lower court then denied the Association’s prevailing
Simply Appealing Was Not So Appealing. In San Diego Natives Holding Co, LLC v. Hughes, Case No. D061523 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 3, 2013) (unpublished), a judge did enter a judgment by which a party prevailed but said each side should bear its own costs/fees. The prevailing party appealed this determination.
Subsequent Judgment Was Not Materially Substantial So As To Trigger New Appeal Time Commencement. Darden Painting, Inc. v. Glass Architects, Case No. A132846 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 9, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where a litigant challenging certain costs ruling was pretty much shut out on procedural grounds–failure to timely appeal. What
Remand to Determine if Offseting is Appropriate; Each Note Claim Judged on its Own. Williams v. Meyer, Case No. B243491 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 4, 2013) (unpublished) involved a debtor plaintiff/cross-defendant and creditor defendant/cross-complainant having dueling claims on two notes delivered in favor of defendant and secured by plaintiff’s house (with fees
Also, No Costs Recovery for Expenses Recouped Via An Insurance Carrier. Nevis Homes LLC v. CW Roofing, Inc., Case No. B237907 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 15, 2013) (partially published) determined two issues of importance, one published and one unpublished in nature: 1. In the published portion, the mail service of a
Defendant winner in a previous copyright dispute filed a memorandum of routine costs, but never moved for recovery of attorney’s fees in that action. This decision, tactical or otherwise, was dispositive in the next case we examine. Defendant, in De Walt v. Jobete Music Co., Inc., Case No. B240650 (2d Dist., Div.
Delay and Prejudice Were Key Factors to Reversal of the Amendment Grant. California litigation practitioners know that pleading amendments are generally liberally granted, although that liberality gets tightened when the requests are made closer to or during trial. The next case is one where an amendment grant four days into a jury trial
Defendants won a SLAPP motion and were awarded partial fees under the mandatory fee-shifting statute, although some in pro per attorneys were denied some fees under Trope. So, the other side appealed, mainly contending that the fees/costs motions were untimely. Appealing party was not successful in Zhang v. Sugars, Case No. B243152
