In De Haas v. Shahinian, Case No. B234726 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 19, 2013) (unpublished), certain parties winning a SLAPP motion and subsequent mandatory fees of $35,559 were disappointed on appeal when the appellate court reversed the SLAPP grant. That meant the fees, as well, went POOF! for these parties. (Panakosta Partners, […]
Simmons v. Ware, Case Nos. G045886 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 13, 2013) (published; 3-0 decision, author: O’Leary, P.J.) is a situation where a judgment NOV against a vessel owner was reversed on appeal. The trial judge also had awarded the previous winner $193,997.61 is costs under CCP § 998. That
Here is a quick two-fer from the Third District: Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. C067812 (3d Dist. Feb. 4, 2013) (published): Judgment was entered against buyer in a defective motor home dispute with a lender to whom an installment sales contract was assigned by dealer. The trial court also awarded
$266,801 Fee Award to Defense Went POOF! The defense in Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co., Case Nos. F063318/F063922 (5th Dist. Jan. 31, 2013) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) must have been feeling pretty good in this one. It had won a summary judgment against a plaintiff suing it on behalf of a
Our POOF! principle was in play in Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley, Case No. A128147 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 23, 2013) (unpublished). City had won a $1.29 million fee awarding under a Public Contract Code. However, that award had to be vacated when the appellate court reversed a summary judgment grant
The Feeling Is Mutual Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B240301 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 14, 2013) (unpublished) demonstrates the reciprocity applicable to contractual fee clauses under Civil Code section 1717. It also demonstrates the POOF! principle applicable to results that are reversed on appeal.
Our POOF! principle was illustrated very poignantly in Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd., Case Nos. A129535/A131600 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 10, 2012) (published). There, plaintiff won a $113,830 compensatory discrimination verdict against the defense, and later garnered a prevailing party $1,157,411 fee recovery (almost 10x). On appeal, the defense won the
On Remand, Reversal Might Mean that No One Prevailed or Even Other Side Prevailed. Where one side prevails across the board and obtains a fees/costs award, reversal on an important issue will usually overturn the entire award because the prevailing party determination might be different–either no side prevailed or even the original loser
We know by now that winning defendants get mandatory, reasonable fee recovery after winning a SLAPP motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c)(1).) However, a reversal of a SLAPP grant invokes our “POOF!” principle on the fee award. Defendants in People ex rel. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp., Case Nos. G045390 et al.
Reversal for Leave to Assert Statutory Trade Secret Claims Means Trial Court Award Goes Away . . . For Now. When a judgment is reversed on appeal, an attorney’s fees award often gets reversed as premature until further proceedings decides who wins or whether a party eventually wins on a fee entitled basis.
