Cases: POOF!

Family Law/POOF!: Third District Reverses Fee Award After Overturning Judgment On Two Claims Against Motor Home Buyer And Sustains 271 Sanctions Against Mother Based On Inadequate Record/Lack of Prejudicial Error

Cases: Family Law, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Record

       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

Equity/Section 1717/Poof!: Fifth District Finds “Buried, One-Sided” Escrow Agreement Fees Clause Was Unconscionable As To Losing Putative Class Action Plaintiff On Government Code Excessive Notary Fee Claim

Cases: Equity, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

  $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 Jan. 31, 2013) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) must have been feeling pretty good in this one.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

POOF!/Section 1717: Plaintiff Winning Breach Of Contract Claims With Unilateral Fee Clause Entitled To Recovery Under Reciprocity Principle

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

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Citizens of South Central Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B240301 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 14, 2013) (unpublished) demonstrates the reciprocity applicable to contractual fee clauses under Civil Code section 1717.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.

POOF!: $1.157 Million Fee Award In Discrimination Case Goes Up In Smoke On Appeal

Cases: POOF!

       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

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,

Scroll to Top