Cases: POOF!

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as author for a 3-0 panel in Gardner v. Baby Trend, Inc., Case No. G043451 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 13, 2012) (unpublished), shows how reversal on the merits–even of a large substantial jury […]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

POOF!: $260,000 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL FEES AWARD GOES AWAY WITH PARTIAL REVERSAL OF MANDATE PETITION

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

       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court’s recent decision in Ross v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B228624 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 20, 2011) (unpublished) demonstrates our POOF!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

POOF!: Reversal Of Demurrer Sustaining Also Means $112,437.50 Fee Award Falls

Cases: POOF!

       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 B225795/B227711 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2011) (unpublished) reversed the sustaining of a demurrer to a complaint alleging invalidity of a trustee’s sale, equitable subrogation re first priority

SLAPP/POOF!: Reversal Of SLAPP Ruling Means Defendants’ Fee/Costs Award Went POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

  $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

Consumer Statutes/POOF!: Elder Abuse Fee Award Reversed Because 2008 Amendments Not Retroactive

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: POOF!

  $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

Private Attorney General Statute: $258,800 Fee Award Goes Up In Smoke (POOF!) Based On Karuk Decision

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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].

Scroll to Top