Cases: Deadlines

Appealability/Costs/Deadlines/Section 1717: Trifecta Of Unpublished Decisions On Various Fee/Costs Issues

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Section 1717

  Costs—CEQA Record Preparation:  North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad, Case No. D066488 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 10, 2015) (Unpublished).     In this first case, the appellate court reversed and remanded a costs award in favor of City in a costs award with respect to certain record preparation costs.  The takeaways here are […]

Deadlines/Section 998: Dismissed Defendants Under Rejected Joint 998 Offer Must Await Judgment Against Remaining Defendants Before Expert Fee Shifting Can Be Determined—998 Fee Shifting Determination Was Premature

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Section 998

  Also, Service Of Judgment Electronically Extended The Time To File/Serve Costs Memorandum.     In a very detailed published decision, the Second District, Division 3 confronted two issues:  (1) whether a costs memorandum filed 17 days after electronic service of a notice of entry of judgment was timely, and (2) whether some dismissed defendants in

Allocation/Deadlines/Reasonableness Of Fees/SLAPP: $19,012.29 Fee Recovery Upheld In Fee Proceeding Against Voluntarily Dismissing Plaintiffs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Lots of Procedural, Allocation, and Reasonableness Challenges Rejected.     In Save Westwood Village v. Luskin, Case No. B257354 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 18, 2015 posting) (unpublished), defendants brought a SLAPP motion, triggering plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss them from the case.  However, the trial court determined the merits of the SLAPP motion, granted it,

Deadlines: Motion To Void Fee Award One Year Later Was Untimely

Cases: Deadlines

  Judgment Awarding Fees Was Not Void, So Attack Was Unsuccessful.     In Francis v. Foxx, Case No. B256423 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 6, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff tenants won $3,445 in a landlord dispute after a bench trial, but then were awarded $47,430 (out of a requested $70,000) in Civil Code section 1717 contractual

Bankruptcy, Deadlines: Plaintiff Chapter 7 Bankrupt Who Filed Fee Motion One Year After Dismissal Did So Untimely

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Deadlines

  Also, Chapter 7 Trustee Properly Dismissed Case Against Defendants, With Chapter 7 Trustee “Owning” the Dismissed Claims.      Plaintiff, a Chapter 7 bankrupt, tried to get attorney’s fees a year after one of his actions was dismissed in favor of defendants by the Chapter 7 trustee under a settlement agreement. Plaintiff still went to

Costs/Deadlines: Clerk’s Failure To Satisfy CCP § 664.5 Dictates For Mailing Notice Of Entry Of Judgment Meant Cost Memorandum Was Timely Filed

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines

  180-Day Rule, Not 15-Day Rule, Applied.      Notice of entry of judgment is a key concept for determining whether certain subsequent filings are timely in nature. Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 provides that notice of entry of judgment mailed by the clerk must “affirmatively state it is given upon order by the court”

Deadlines/Family Law: Appeal Of $5,000 Needs-Based Fee Award Untimely Because Brought Outside of The 180-Day Maximum Deadline

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Family Law

  Fee Award Directed Payment Of Money, So It Was Final For Appealability Purposes Even Though Order Said Future Adjustments Could Be Made.      In Marriage of Bustillo, Case No. G048816 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2014) (unpublished), husband appealed a $5,000 needs-based fee award to wife, entered in May 2012, directing payment of

Deadlines: Failure To File Noticed Motion Separate From Costs Memorandum Resulted In Denial Of Appellate Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Deadlines

  Ignorance of the Law Was No CCP § 473 Excuse.      Deadlines and procedural technicalities can be a real trap for all lawyers, and can especially be gnarly when requesting attorney’s fees. Van Loon v. Winchester-Wesselink, LLC, Case No. E058826 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 3, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates this well. There, plaintiffs filed

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.     

Scroll to Top