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 principle was in play in Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley, Case No. A128147 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 23, 2013) (unpublished).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Citizens of South Central Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B240301 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 14, 2013) (unpublished) demonstrates the reciprocity applicable to contractual fee clauses under Civil Code section 1717.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.
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 A133044/A134394 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2012) (unpublished) demonstrates what happens when the appellate court determines that the SLAPP order should have been denied.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
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,
$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
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
