Cases: POOF!

POOF!/Prevailing Party: Partial Reversal Of Result In Landscape Easement Agreement Dispute Means $146,000 Fees/Costs Award Goes POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  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 […]

SLAPP/POOF!: Reversal Of SLAPP Grant Means Fee Award Goes POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

       A prevailing cross-defendant in a SLAPP proceeding garnered successful fee awards of $7,834.75 and $3,953 against the cross-complainant. However, Peng v. Hong Sang Market, Inc., Case Nos. A133044/A134394 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2012) (unpublished) demonstrates what happens when the appellate court determines that the SLAPP order should have been denied. What

Eminent Domain/POOF!: $233,750 Litigation Expense Award To Condemnee Under Conditional Dismissal Order Goes POOF When Order Is Vacated

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

  Appellate Court Decides that Conditional Dismissal Order Issuance Was Error.      Council of San Benito County Governments must be sighing with relief based on the appellate court vacating a conditional dismissal in an eminent domain proceeding. In Council of San Benito County Governments v. Hollister Inn, Inc., Case No. H036629 (6th Dist. Sept. 19,

Employment/POOF!: Labor Code Section 218.5 Fee Award To Employer In Class Action Case Vacated Based Upon Reversal Of Summary Adjudication On Vacation Benefit Pay Claim

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

  $120,000 Fee Award Went POOF!      Labor Code section 218.5 requires a fee award to the prevailing party in any action brought for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, except an action for which fees are recoverable under section 1194 and certain other actions. Employer obtained summary

Homeowner Associations/POOF!: Strange Procedural Posture Requires Reversal Of $46,300 Fee/Costs Order When Judgment of Dismissal Reversed in Fourth Appeal of Dispute Involving Homeowner and HOA

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: POOF!

  Bizarre Circumstances Led to Reversal and Denial of Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Fee/Costs Award.      Well, the fourth appeal in a longstanding mold/water intrusion/infestation dispute between a homeowner and HOA involved homeowners’ challenge to a judgment of dismissal in favor of HOA as well as the lower court’s order awarding HOA attorney’s fees

POOF!/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Determination Of No Sovereign Immunity Waiver Meant Substantial Fee Award Under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Goes POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $2.5 Million Fee and $22,000 Costs Awards Went Away.      In Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, Case Nos. 11-15468 et al. (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2012) (published), the Ninth Circuit dealt with a situation where two private plaintiffs obtained statutory damages and substantial $2,515,387.09 fee and $22,012.36 costs awards under 50 U.S.C. § 1810.

Employment: Attorney’s Fees Recovery Not Permitted Where Plaintiff Employee Winning Labor Commissioner Award Against Employer Had Appeal Dismissed As Untimely On Jurisdictional Grounds

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

  To Be Unsuccessful on Appeal, Employee Must Have Merits Tried By Superior Court And Besieged With a Zero Award.      Labor Code section 98.2(c) is a one-way fee shifting provision that penalizes an unsuccessful party who appeals a labor commissioner’s decision, mandating that the court assess attorney’s fees upon the unsuccessful appealing party. In

Homeowner Associations/POOF!: Reversal Of HOA Award Means Homeowner Survives To See What Happens On Remand

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: POOF!

  Appellate Court Tells Everyone That Some Claims May Not Be Compensable.      Homeowner Association (HOA)/homeowner disputes seem to be very acrimonious. However, depending on who prevails, there may be fee exposure under Civil Code section 1354 (CC&R enforcement) or Civil Code section 1717 (contractual fee enforcement). But, each side may have to wait until

Scroll to Top