His Failure to Present a Claim to the County Barred Fees Request. In our May 3, 2009 post, we discussed former Kern County Sheriff Carl Sparks’ battle in a lawsuit brought by Kern County to obtain an award of attorney’s fees under several theories, but mainly Government Code section 996.4 (a statute requiring […]
Prior Adjudication Precluded the Subsequent Award. In South Bay Rod and Gun Club v. Dashiell, Case No. D053658 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 4, 2009) (unpublished), director/real estate broker won a lawsuit against non-profit Club over a real estate option transaction. Winning director then sought fees in connection with his slander of title claim
Second District, Division 3 Address Many, Many Procedural Issues in Unpublished Opinion. In Matusek v. Benn, Case No. B206776 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished), two sets of defendants (the Murad and Benn defendants, each set composed of businesses and their principals) contracted to create an infomercial using an appearance by plaintiff
Second District, Division Seven Affirms Denial of Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions We have written from time to time about tort of another and section 1021.6 as bases for attorney’s fees. Justice Perluss, author of a 3-0 opinion, has written a conveniently concise primer on the subjects. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
Second District, Division 8 Follows Myers-Campbell-Carr Line of Cases In a Scholarly Unpublished Decision. In our category “Indemnity,” we have surveyed cases where attorney’s fees have and have not been awarded where contracts contain indemnity clauses. The result frequently depends on the wording of the clauses. If the clauses only really cover exposure relating
Articles Discusses California Supreme Court’s Crawford Decision In Depth. On June 6, 2009, we posted a discussion on the trial court’s decision in SSR Marlowe, which placed dispositive weight on the earlier California Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Weather Shield, 44 Cal.4th 541 (2008). Daniel Lee Jacobson, an Orange County attorney and
Los Angeles County Judge Carl J. West Grants Summary Adjudication to General Contractor; New Civil Code Section 2782(d) Has New Rules For Construction Projects After January 1, 2009. In SSR Marlowe, LLC v. Taisei Construction Corp., Case No. BC363862 (L.A. County Superior Court June 4, 2009), Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carl
Second District, Division 5 Confirms That Surety Is Usually Liable For Fees If Obligor-Obligee Contracts Calls For Fees. This next case should be of interest for you practitioners who practice construction law involving payment/performance bonds issued by a surety. Usually, the bonds confirm a tripartite arrangement between the obligor (in the next case, the
Fifth District So Holds in Recent Published Decision Involving Carl Sparks. With certain exceptions, a California public entity must provide a defense in any civil action brought against an employee or former employee arising out of that employee’s act or omission in the scope of employment. (Gov. Code, sec. 995.) However, the Government Claims
Court of Appeal Discusses Numerous Issues Under the Two Statutes. In a complicated construction dispute between window subcontractor and other construction professionals sued for equitable indemnity and contribution, the Fourth District, Division 1 reversed and affirmed some fee awards against window subcontractor after overturning a judgment on the pleadings, affirming a summary judgment as
