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as author for a 3-0 panel in Gardner v. Baby Trend, Inc., Case No. G043451 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 13, 2012) (unpublished), shows how reversal on the merits–even of a large substantial jury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court’s recent decision in Ross v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B228624 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 20, 2011) (unpublished) demonstrates our POOF!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 B225795/B227711 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2011) (unpublished) reversed the sustaining of a demurrer to a complaint alleging invalidity of a trustee’s sale, equitable subrogation re first priority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
$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
