Northern California Recycling Assn. v. County of Solano, Case No. A132844 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2014) (unpublished) demonstrates our POOF! principle: reversal of a merits judgment generally means that an ensuing fee award (this one based on the private attorney general statute) also goes away, which it did.
However, Prevailing Party Did Get Routine, Non-Fee Costs Based on Waiver/Inadequate Record on Appeal. In Yamtob v. Alon, Case No. B247453 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 31, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a dispute to defendant/cross-complainant, who certainly obtained a net recovery judgment against plaintiff arising out of a diamond transaction. (Fitting over the
$134,243.25 in Fees/$3,819.95 in Costs Went Away. Defendants prevailing on a successful motion to dismiss copyright infringement claims also requested $177,366.75 in fees (including $43,123.58 in “fees on fees”) and $3,819.95 in routine costs. The district judge awarded the defense $134,243.25 in fees and all of the requested fees based on a copyright
Substantial Fee Award Went POOF! Estancia Coastal, LLC v. KB Home Coastal, Inc., Case No. D062219 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 16, 2013) (unpublished) involved a big fight between a developer hit with $6.5 million in developmental mitigation fees against assignee of a land owner giving an option to developer. The
Appellate Court Also Reversed and Remanded Fee Award Against Attorney in Light of Disgorgement Reversal. This next case, Fleischman v. Stanton, Case No. B216898 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 19, 2013) (unpublished), is a wild one involving an ex-attorney whose retainer agreement was voided as well as having the trial judge ordering him
Some Fee Recoveries Went POOF, Some Stayed, and Some Will Be Re-Done. Kirk v. Dimitri, Case No. D058758 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 13, 2013) (unpublished) was a multi-party case arising from a failed residential real estate venture in Fallbrook. Ultimately, a jury and then a court in an equitable trial entered various
Fee Entitlement Was Established Under Public Records Act and Private Attorney General Statute, But Reversal of Civil Rights Judgment Determination Required a “Relook” All Around. Although quite a lengthy decision, Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, Case Nos. D060001/D061141 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 30, 2013) (published) does show that
$41,262.50 Fee Award Evaporates. In Mansour-White v. Grant & Weber, Inc., Case No. B239900 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiffs won a malicious prosecution action and state fair debt collection act violations, winning $30,000 for emotional distress, $2,000 for statutory violations, and $41,262.50 in statutory attorney’s fees. Well, once the
$80,000 Fee Award/$2,000 Costs Award Go POOF! Artist: Jean-Léon Gérôme. 1824 – 1904. Optometrist had gotten a nice win–a superior court overturned an ALJ’s determination that the optometrist had violated the standard of care in relation to a patient’s cataracts diagnosis. The lower court then awarded optometrist about $80,000 in fees
Young v. State Water Resources Control Bd., Case No. C068559 (3d Dist. Sept. 4, 2013) (published) Customers of water distribution company won mandamus on a water diversion jurisdictional issue and the Water Board conceded their ability to participate in administrative proceedings, which triggered a lower court award of fees to customers under the
