Cases: POOF!

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 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 16, 2013) (unpublished) involved a big fight between a developer hit with $6.5 million in developmental mitigation fees against assignee of a land owner giving an option to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      This next case, Fleischman v. Stanton, Case No. B216898 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 19, 2013) (unpublished), is a wild one involving an ex-attorney whose retainer agreement was voided as well as having the trial judge ordering him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      Kirk v. Dimitri, Case No. D058758 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 13, 2013) (unpublished) was a multi-party case arising from a failed residential real estate venture in Fallbrook.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

POOF!: Reversal Of State Fair Debt Collection Judgment Means Fee Award Goes Away Too

Cases: POOF!

  $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

Private Attorney General Statute/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Optometrist Overturning ALJ Determination Against His Certificate Not Entitled To Fee Award Under Private Attorney General Statute Or Government Code Section 800

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

  $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

POOF!: Decisions For September 4, 2013–Two POOFS Are Better Than One

Cases: POOF!

  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

Scroll to Top