Cases: POOF!

Construction/Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Payment Bond Made Clear That Surety Not Liable To Additional Fees/Costs Above Penal Bond Sum, Party Obtaining Fees In Derogation Of This Limitation Not Entitled to Fees

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

  Only County Entitled to Additional Fees/Costs Over Penal Sum Based on Clear Terms in Payment Bond.      In Granite Constr. Co. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co., Case No. C066759 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished), surety under a payment bond lost an exoneration argument at trial based on a settlement agreement which had a […]

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      Bel Air Glen Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Dowlatshahi, Case No. B243549 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 5, 2014) (unpublished) has a Monty Pythonesque quality about it.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      City of Novato v. Morgan, Case No. A130899 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 27, 2014) (unpublished) involved the scope of personal guaranties to perform under two residential subdivision agreements.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

Scroll to Top