$127,616.90 Fee Award Evaporated. Defendants won a summary judgment against plaintiff contractor based on the determination that plaintiff could not recover because it did not have a contractor’s license. The trial court later awarded defendants attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 of $127,616.90. That fee award went POOF! when the appellate court […]
Court Reminds Us About Right 998 Calculus, Sustains Broad Fees Clause Applying To Torts, And POOF!s Another Substantial Fee Award To Another Defendant After Reversing A Without Leave Demurrer. This next case is amazing in demonstrating how a relatively small loan of $100,000 can result in lots of attorney’s fees/expert fee recoupment to
In Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223542 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 23, 2012) (certified for publication), the Second District overturned a civil rights award of $202,700 to a plaintiff and against Los Angeles County for allegations relating to plaintiff’s claims he was kept in jail for 16 days due
No Place Like Home: FHA/FEHA Restrictions Held Not Applicable to Roommate Selection for Sharing Inside of Living Units. Roomate.com, LLC, which maintains a website asking questions about sex, sexual orientation, and familial status for individuals seeking roommates, must have been shocked when a district judge granted a summary judgment/permanent injunction based on finding
Reversal of Fortune on Appeal to Plaintiff Winning Substantial Jury Verdict and Substantial Attorney’s Fees Below. Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, as author for a 3-0 panel in Gardner v. Baby Trend, Inc., Case No. G043451 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 13, 2012) (unpublished), shows how reversal on the merits–even of a large substantial jury
Substantial Awards Were Reversed. As Justice O’Leary of our local Santa Ana court reminds us, reversal of a successful cross-complaint demurrer ruling (including a ruling on contractual claims) also means that the subsequent prevailing party determination goes POOF! also. The reason is that the contracts are still being litigated, and the prevailing party
The appellate court’s recent decision in Ross v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B228624 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 20, 2011) (unpublished) demonstrates our POOF! principle in convincing fashion. There, the appellate court reversed a mandate petition in part which was favorable to plaintiffs. That reversal meant that the $260,000 fees award to
In Panakosta Partners, LP v. Hammer Lane Management, LLC, Case No. C065812 (3d Dist. Sept. 27, 2011) (certified for publication), minority limited partners were hit with an adverse fee award of $38,784.50 when majority partners SLAPPed them for bringing a petition for buyout (to avoid a judicial dissolution) under Corporations Code section 15908.02.
Here is one that demonstrates our POOF! principle for a substantial attorney’s fees award. The appellate court in Goslins v. Taxe, Case Nos. B225795/B227711 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2011) (unpublished) reversed the sustaining of a demurrer to a complaint alleging invalidity of a trustee’s sale, equitable subrogation re first priority
$28,712.50 Fee/Costs Award Was the Victim in This One. Defendants probably felt pretty good after they SLAPPed plaintiff’s suit and won fees/cost of $28,712.50 under the SLAPP mandatory fee-shifting statute. The feeling was somewhat short lived, however. The appellate court in Gonzales v. Gonzales Foundation, Case Nos. A123857/124346 (1st Dist., Div. 3
