Cases: POOF!

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 […]

POOF!/Family Law Two-Fer: Reversal Means $107,560 Fee Award Goes Away And $50,000 Needs/Sanction Award Against Husband Hiding Finances Sustained

Cases: Family Law, Cases: POOF!

  Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc., Case No. G045321 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 31, 2012; Posted June 5, 2012) (published).      Justice Fybel, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, reversed bench trial results in an opinion involving many UCC issues, such as gap fillers for contract formation, confirmation

Assignment/POOF!: Limited Partner’s Assignment Of His Fraud Claim Did Not Pass Rights Under Limited Partnership Agreement To Assignee So That He Could Obtain The Benefit Of Fee Clause Recovery

Cases: POOF!

  $1.34 Million Fee Award Went POOF!      Miske v. Bisno, Case Nos. A127596 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 12, 2012) (partially published, including fee discussion) is an interesting case where the defrauded limited partner was treated as an innocent third party which produced a $1.4 million fraud compensatory verdict result. The defrauded

POOF!: Reversal Of Unlicensed Contractor Determination Meant Civil Code Section 1717 Fee Award Went POOF!

Cases: POOF!

  $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

Interpretation of Fee Clauses/POOF!/Section 998: Winning Creditor Obtained $210,000 Fee/Expert Fee Award After Beating Main Defendant’s 998

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 998

  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

Civil Rights/POOF!: $494,714.40 Fee Award Against Roommate Web Sorting Service Vacated Upon Reversal of Summary Judgment/Permanent Injunction Against Litigant

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: POOF!

  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

Employment/POOF!: Appellate Court’s Reversal Of Two Labor Claims With Fee Recovery And One Independent Sales Act Claim With Fee Recovery Means That Plaintiff’s $889,000 Fee Award Goes POOF!

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

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

Prevailing Party POOF!: Reversal of Successful Cross-Complaint Demurrer Ruling Meant Prevailing Party Fee/Costs Awards Went POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  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

Scroll to Top