Deadlines/Pro Per Representation: Losing Party Not Entitled To Costs Because Filed Too Late, Not Entitled To Fees Based On Pro Per Representation Although losing defendants probably did not prevail to begin with, their appeal of a lower court’s denial of fees and costs was rebuffed in Connolly v. Trabue, Case No. […]
Seventh Circuit Discusses FRCP Entanglement, Does Not Believe Attorney’s Fees Sanctions Orders Are To Be Treated Differently Than Normal Federal Fee Orders. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in Feldman v. Olin, No. 11-2722 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2012), tackled a messy federal rules of civil procedure issue relating to whether attorneys
Fee Claimant, Two Days Too Late, Allowed to Recoup Substantial Fees Given Uncertainty in Bankruptcy Extension/Tolling Rules. Here is an interesting published decision relating to the deadlines for filing an attorney’s fees motion. The normal deadline, absent stipulation or extension by the trial judge, is governed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)–the
Situation Normal . . . Kempton v. Cooper, Case No. B229912 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 25, 2012) (unpublished) was a situation where the appellate court affirmed a trial court’s award of fees on appeal of $53,440 and costs on appeal of $1,410. There was a snafu on the costs to be awarded, necessitating
Some of the Appeals Were Untimely; College District Award of Costs and Fee Justified in Nature. Subcontractor sued a general contractor and community college district on an approximate $100,000 extra work claim. Subcontractor lost many of the claims through pre-trial dispositive motions and dismissed the remaining claim after general contractor paid a disputed
Reversal and Remand Was the Result in this One. Acting Presiding Justice O’Leary in Fuller v. Monogram Real Estate, Case No. G044808 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 19, 2011) (unpublished), on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, got to explore three issues of interest in the attorney’s fees area
$45,017.50 Fee Award Against Losing Employee Sustained on Appeal. Losing employee was hit with attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 218.5 when she lost an employment case. The fee award was $45,017.50, one-fourth of the total fees expended by defendant on an apportioned basis in line with the defense request to the lower
Appellate Court Follows Erickson over Torres on Amended Judgment Procedural Issue. This next case is a sequel to an appellate opinion we discussed in our December 1, 2009 post, where the Second District, Division 4 decided that the first 998 offer is the proper measuring stick in a case where a second 998
Merely Objecting to Preliminary View in Statement of Decision Not Enough. Landlord won modest damages in case, but was denied an award of attorney’s fees in a statement of decision giving a preliminary view on the prevailing party issue, a statement drawing objections by both sides and resulting in an eventual judgment stating
Trial Court Properly Rejected Comparison of Selective Tasks of Opposing Counsel in Gauging Reasonableness of Claimant’s Fee Request. Here is an interesting one where years and years of litigation may have come to a close in Vasquez v. State of California, Case No. D056598 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 19, 2011) (unpublished), resolving
