Cases: POOF!

Appealability/Homeowner Associations/POOF!: Merits Reversal Also Meant Fee Award Went POOF! Even Though No Appeal From Fee Order Was Achieved

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: POOF!

  Important Nuance to Keep in Mind—Trial Court Directed to Vacate Fee Award.      Bel Air Glen Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Dowlatshahi, Case No. B243549 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 5, 2014) (unpublished) has a Monty Pythonesque quality about it.      What happened was that an HOA Board of Directors got its directors’ collective hackles […]

Allocation/POOF!: Split Decision On Applicability Of Two Guaranties Meant Dueling Fee Awards Had To Be Reconsidered On Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: POOF!

  Even a Partial Reversal Can See a Substantial Fee Award Goes POOF!      City of Novato v. Morgan, Case No. A130899 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 27, 2014) (unpublished) involved the scope of personal guaranties to perform under two residential subdivision agreements. In prior litigation not involving the two guaranties, City was successful in

IP/POOF!/SLAPP: A SLAPP Fee Award And Copyright Claim Dismissal Fee Recovery Go POOF!, While Another SLAPP Fee Award Of $248,506 Plus Fees On Fees Affirmed

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Appealing Parties Could Not Surmount Abuse of Discretion Standard on Second SLAPP Fee Award.      In Graham-Sult v. Clainos, Case No. 11-16779 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2014) (published), one defendants obtained a SLAPP fee recovery of $126,431.50 (out of a requested $133,431.50) and a second group of defendants obtained a SLAPP fee recovery of $248,506

Estoppel/Section 1717: Contract Only Allowing For Recovery Of Costs, Not Specifying Attorney’s Fees, Did Not Give Rise To Fee Recovery

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

  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      In Yamtob v. Alon, Case No. B247453 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 31, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a dispute to defendant/cross-complainant, who certainly obtained a net recovery judgment against plaintiff arising out of a diamond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

Intellectual Property/POOF!: Reversal Of Copyright Infringement Claims Dismissal Means Fee/Costs Awards Went POOF!

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: POOF!

  $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

Costs/POOF!/Prevailing Party: Reversal of Impact Fee Component Judgment Meant Prevailing Party Status Had To Be Revisited, But Not Costs Award

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  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

POOF!/Retainer Agreements: Although Attorney’s Retainers Had Unlawful Provisions, Attorney Did Not Seek To Enforce Them, With Disgorgement Of Previously Paid Fees Reversed

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  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

Prevailing Party: Confusing Fee Recoveries By Multiple Parties On Multiple Contracts Requires Reversal, Affirmance, And Remand

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  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

POOF!/Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Provision: Reversal Of Federal Due Process Violations Count Required Remand Redetermination Of Fee Awards To Prevailing Parties In Reverse Validation Action

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Scroll to Top