Reversal/Modification Delineation Can Be Fuzzy, But It Was A Reversal In This Case. Acting Presiding Justice Segal, in Vines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Case No. B327821 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 25, 2024) (published), quite correctly in our view noted that the issue for when interest runs on an earlier versus corrected attorney’s […]
End Result Was That 3 ½ Years Of Interest Did Not Accrue, About A $100,000 Savings. In AAWestwood, LLC v. Liberal Arts 677 Benevolent Foundation, Inc., Case No. B302363 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 8, 2021) (unpublished), the interest accrual for a subsequent fees order was the question facing the appellate court. The
Lucky Did Not Reach All Aspects Of The Issue Before The 4/1 DCA – With Copper Liquor Being More In Line With The Panel’s Construction Of The Enforcement Of Judgments Law. Steve Jobs [Apple computer]. 1984. Photographer Bernard Gotfryd. Library of Congress. For a great discussion on the start date for the accrual
Attorney Obtained Substantial Pretrial Attachment, But He Did Not Obtain Substantial Interest On Delinquent Fees Because No Interest Provision Was Present In The Retainer Agreement. Pech v. Morgan, Case No. B300524 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 11, 2021) (published) is an instructive decision indicating how enforceable, compliant fee agreements are dealt with in pretrial
Defendant HOA’s Breach Of Owner/Developer’s Valid Contractual Access Rights Was The Common Core Involved In The Causes Of Action, So Apportionment Of Fees Not Required. In Millennium-Diamond Road Partners v. Diamond Bar etc., Case No. B285539 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2019) (unpublished), Owner/Developer Millennium sued HOA when it revoked Millennium’s access
Substance Of The Order Was Determinative. In Pacifica Companies LLC v. Patel, Case No. D074358 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 23, 2019) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA in an earlier decision reversed a trial judge order denying a request for contractual attorney’s fees based upon a letter of intent agreement, remanding so that the trial
Complicated Interpleader Dispute Still Results In Interest Accrual Result Described Above. Wertheim, LLC v. Currency Corp., Case No. B270926 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 25, 2017) (unpublished) involved a complicated interpleader/postjudgment dispute between various parties, among which was an insurer of an appeal bond in favor of plaintiff Wertheim. For purposes of this blog,
10% Per Annum Rate Governed Costs Award. In our June 19, 2014 post, we discussed Chodos v. Borman, 227 Cal.App.4th 76 (2014) (Chodos I), where the appellate court refused to sustain a multiplier were the attorney had no retainer agreement with the client such that the lodestar, with two stipulated adjustments, adequately compensated
Plaintiff’s Attempt To Depose Hyundai CEO For $462.50 Did Not Impress Appellate Court, Much Less Hyundai’s Emergency Stay Request. We knew that the decision in Hyundai Motor America v. Superior Court, Case No. G051279 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 20, 2015) (published) was going to be interesting, because it kicked off with this
Court of Appeal Did Affirm 998 Cost-Shifting As To Rejected 998 Offer. In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corp., Case No. D064587 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 10, 2015) (partially published; prejudgment interest on costs discussion published/998 costs discussion not published), plaintiff won a substantial $1.271 damages award resulting from a rear end
