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 B225795/B227711 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2011) (unpublished) reversed the sustaining of a demurrer to a complaint alleging invalidity of a trustee’s sale, equitable subrogation re first priority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
$326,588 Award Went Bye-Bye. Plaintiffs in an elder abuse case where the crucial claims centered about defendants’ undue influence of an elder, causing an amendment to a testamentary trust, fared well in the trial court. The lower court invalidated the trust and awarded plaintiffs attorney’s fees of $326,588 under Welfare & Institutions Code
Appellate Court Did State that Prevailing Party Could Renew Fee and/or Costs Request. Carrick v. County of Santa Cruz, Case No. H035841 (6th Dist. Apr. 18, 2011) (unpublished) is an interesting illustration of our POOF! principle. There, a homeowner embroiled with a County for maintaining unpermitted structures on his property was hit with
First District, Division 2 Uses Hunting and Boxing Analogies in Reversing Fee Award. The next decision we survey involves a reversal driven by the same apppellate court’s earlier decision in Karuk Tribe of No. Calif. v. Calif. Regional Water Quality Control Bd., 183 Cal.App.4th 330, 364-369 (2010) [discussed in our March 30, 2010 post].
First District, Division 5 Finds Cross-Complaint Not Properly SLAPPed Because It Did Not Arise From Free Speech or Petitioning Activity. For those of you that follow our blog, you know we have the POOF! principle. This principle manifests itself when there is a merits reversal of a substantive order that gave rise to
Prompt Payment Statute Fee Shifting Was Now In Play For City. When a judgment is reversed as a matter of law by an appellate court in favor of the other side, that usually means good things for the other side–any fee and costs awards go POOF! and the prior losing party may prevail so
Reasons: Issue Was Not Of Substantial Importance And Form Interrogatory Responses Effectively Explained Denial. In Wilson v. Lightner, Case No. D055083 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 31, 2011) (not for publication), parties in a bitter easement dispute reached a denouement when the trial court awarded successful defendants a postjudgment award of $341,295 as costs
Second District Illustrates the “No POOF!” Rule. If you have followed our blog, you know about our “POOF” rule. This is the principle by which a fee award will generally go POOF! (goes away) when there is a material reversal of a merits award that was the predicate for the fee award. Now,
