Equity Prevailed! Greyhound Bus sign, S. Carolina. Oct. 29, 2007. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. Library of Congress. In Gee v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Case No. C077077 (3d Dist. Nov. 21, 2016) (published), plaintiff had her case dismissed after she failed to pay venue transfer fees based on her attorney’s error. The trial […]
Common Benefit Analysis Led To Recovery Of Fees By One Tenant In Common. Although the facts are quite interesting from a partition perspective, Villicana v. Lindsay, Case No. G052709 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 13, 2016) (unpublished) stands for the proposition that a trial judge has authority to award attorney’s fees to one
Equities Were Weighted, Favoring No Offset Of Fee Award. Crasnick v. Marquez and Diaz, Case No. BV 031459 (L.A. Superior Court Appellate Div. May 24, 2016 (published) (3-0 decision authored by Judge Ricciardulli), transmitted to 2d Dist. for consideration of transfer, No. B272469 involved an interesting judgment offset situation. There, a tenant in
Setoff Language Of CCP § 877 Also Supported Result. Tuttle v. Ukiah Adventist Hospital, Case No. A144759 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 31, 2016) (unpublished) was an uncontested slip-and-fall case from a liability perspective, with plaintiffs obtaining several pre-trial settlements but eventually winning a jury verdict as to one non-settling defendant, with set-off
$156,614.47 Fee Recovery Went POOF! On Appeal. Wasserman v. Ketelhut, Case No. B258642 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 1, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting common interest development case where multiple plaintiffs were fighting defendants over various CC&R governing document claims about defendants operating a vineyard which encroached on certain CID common areas. (BLOG
Plaintiff Only Recovered $2,229, And CCP § 473 Relief Did Not Resonate. We have to say that in pro per plaintiffs need to beware when confronted with CCP § 998 offers—even though our courts are open to all, in pro per representation is fraught with perils, as Jones v. Pierce, Case No. A139665
Case Revolved On Meanings Of “Generated” And “Received.” An attorney working on medical malpractice cases felt cheated when it received no “bonus” compensation after the cases settled well after his termination from the handling law firm. Unfortunately for him, he lost his bonus claims after years of litigation. The Seventh Circuit Court
Civil Harassment Proceeding Was the Context Due process, due process, that concept drove the striking of an attorney’s fees award in a civil harassment proceeding context. In Bridges v. Smith, Case No. C074704 (3d Dist. Feb. 23, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs were granted a 5-year civil harassment restraining order to stop defendant’s alleged
Reciprocity Required Under Section 1717, Given Unfairness of Other Result. In Trejo v. Arriaga, Case No. D064410 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 21, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff 50/50 shareholder in a closely-held corporation lost an amended shareholder derivative lawsuit against defendant 50/50 shareholder. Defendant nonsuited plaintiff based on a failure to prove damages. Defendant
Some Should Have Been Sought In Federal Court, But Vexatious Litigant Sanctions And Addition Of Attorney As Judgment Debtor, Who Assisted Vexatious Litigant, Was Proper. Kempton v. Clark, Case No. B248713 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 25, 2014) (unpublished) is a real imbroglio involving bankruptcy adversary and state court proceedings in which vexatious
