In Pari Delicto Exception Sustained the Fee Recovery. What happened in Assadian v. Parsi, Case No. G054037 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 14, 2017) (unpublished) is that a business consultant, who apparently practiced law in an unauthorized manner, did not prevail on contract and other claims against his clients. Just to make the suffering […]
Galindo v. Polakoff, Case No. D071555 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 29, 2017) (Unpublished)—Equity/Offsets. In this one, the Court of Appeal affirmed an offset determination by the trial judge where it did grant fees to one party prevailing but even after an offset conclusion was reached. Must reading for practitioners facing offset issues under
Result No Different Even If Classic Attorney’s Fees Lien Involved. Although the facts are too convoluted to discuss in detail, Lalanne v. Armanino, Case No. A147227 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 31, 2017) (unpublished) involved a situation where an attorney obtained an assignment of judgment which was held subject to claimed offsets in the
Typo In 998 Offer Not Material; Pecuniary Interest Disqualified Attorney From Fees. On April 27, 2017, we posted on Gillotti v. Stewart, a then unpublished Third District decision which found immaterial typo in a CCP § 998 offer and also disqualified fees for an attorney with a pecuniary interest in the
Equity—Gilotti v. Stewart, Case No. C075611 (3d Dist. April 26, 2017) (Unpublished): Section 998 Offer, Typo Notwithstanding Valid, and Attorney’s Self Interest Disqualified Fee Recovery. In this construction defect lawsuit, plaintiff was ordered to pay a prevailing grading contractor expert fees under CCP § 998, even though the offer said $49,999
Attorney Sued Too Late, With Account Stated Count Not Lengthening The 2-Year SOL. Leighton v. Forster, Case No. A145601 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 9, 2017) (published), is an interesting case to show how a noncompliant engagement letter leaves the attorney to seek recovery of fees in quantum meruit, which is governed by
"Double Dipping" Was The Rationale. Earl & Reimer APC v. Klimek, Case No. H041638 (6th Dist. Feb. 1, 2017) (unpublished) is a case where an attorney's fees award was reversed and remanded in order to prevent "double dipping": the trial judge previously awarded discovery sanctions, and those sanctions were not properly taken into account
Somewhat Of A Pyrrhic Victory For Plaintiff. Wilson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. D070965 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 20, 2017) (unpublished) was somewhat of a pyrrhic victor for plaintiff on appeal. What happened below was that a trial judge erroneously failed to honor plaintiff's dismissal of an action, striking it and then
All Intervening Procedural Steps Were Validated, But Appellate Court Did Not Award Defendant Costs On Appeal. In Morschauser v. Continental Capital, LLC, Case No. E062278 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 12, 2016) (unpublished), a defendant corporation successfully obtained summary judgment against plaintiff and then moved to recover $133,644.50 in attorney’s fees and costs
Oh, Brother! — Case Illustrates Equitable Principles Are Front And Center In Partition Disputes. Partition disputes are equitable, with a broad fee-shifting statute in the form of Code of Civil Procedure section 874.040 allowing a trial court broad discretion to equitably apportion fees and costs among the parties to the partition action.
