Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying Fees Under CCP § 527.6(s). In Ewing v. Greenlee, Case No. A155828 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 30, 2019) (unpublished), a trial judge denied a discretionary request for a $15,000 attorney’s fees award by the prevailing party in a civil harassment. Code of Civil Procedure […]
Guaranty Limitation Applied Only To Damages, Not To Attorney’s Fees Which Are Costs Instead. In Valencia Gateway Retail IV, LLC v. Woltman, Case No. B288726 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 20, 2019) (unpublished), two defendant guarantors of a breached lease argued that a guaranty liability limitation—“equal to six months’ charges due under the lease”
Court Could Not Find Case On Point, So It Was Guided By Statutory Purpose Of Section 998. In Hersey v. Vopava, B287896 (2nd Dist. Div. 8 Aug. 14, 2019) (Stratton, Grimes, Wiley), the Court holds, "where an offeree achieves a judgment more favorable than a first offer, the determination of whether an offeree obtained
In One Case, Section 998 Offer Was Not Beat Even Though Two Plaintiff Tenants Did Get Positive Damages Under The San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization And Arbitration Ordinance. The 1/2 DCA in two opinions, Pitre v. Lam and Wong, Case No. A151061 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 7, 2019) (unpublished) and Randt v. Lam,
Residential Security Deposit Scheme Did Not Preempt Tort Fee Award; But Landlord Correctly Reduced Landlord’s Fee Request Of $659,367.56 For Various Reasons Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Weingart, sitting by assignment on the 2/1 DCA, has penned a nice decision in Sweeney v. Scully, Case No. B284915 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 27,
Fee Entitlement Bases Existed, And Amount Of Fee Award Was Not Erroneous. Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(b)(1) has a mandatory fees and actual costs provision to be applied for State Housing Law violations where the lower court finds a building substantially endangers residents’ health and safety. San Francisco has a Rent Ordinance (Adm.
No Segregation Between Properly And Erroneously Awarded Amounts Meant Plaintiffs Lost The Full Amounts Of Their Awards For Compensatory Damages Of $1,289,000, Punitive Damages Of $1,289,000, Attorney Fees Of $2,385,773.70 and Costs Of $56,417.72 In Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, Case No. D071849, (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 28, 2019) (unpublished), sixty-nine current
After Ten Years Of Litigation, Tenant Only Received A $56,000 Net Recovery—Not Exactly A Win When All Of The Attorney Efforts Are Considered! Christie v. Ridge, Case No. B259189 (2d Dist., Div. 6 February 6, 2019) (unpublished), although unpublished, is a nice reminder of how costly litigation is and how both litigants winning attorney’s
Although More Fees Potentially Allowable Under Statutory Inhabitability Claim, Jury Did Not Base Its Verdict On The Statute Such That Contractually Capped Amount Was The Proper Award. This next case involves an intersection between the parties’ contractually capped fee recovery under lease agreements and potentially more expansive damages under a statute allowing recovery for
One Unilateral San Francisco Ordinance Fee-Shifting Provision Did Not Show That Interrelated Fees Spent On Compensable Claims Could Not Be Allowed. Bienkowski v. Lam, Case No. A151579 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 9, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation where a tenant sued a defendant as the undisclosed partner of landlord, alleging that he was
