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 In Wilson v. Lightner, Case No. D055083 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 31, 2011) (not for publication), parties in a bitter easement dispute reached a denouement when the trial court awarded successful defendants a postjudgment award of $341,295 as costs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,
$20,147.50 Fee Award and $3,581.87 Costs Award Go POOF! We have many times explored the restriction in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 292 (1995) [one of our Leading Cases], where in propria persona attorneys cannot recover Civil Code section 1717 fees expended in litigating matters on their own behalf. The hallmark of situations
Reconsideration Warranted Because This Was Bulk of Damages Award. Our POOF! principle–that the reversal of a merits judgment often times results in reversal of a fees award–resurrected itself in the next case. In Greenwich S.F., LLC v. Wong, Case Nos. A123670/A124882 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 2, 2010) (certified for publication), plaintiffs were
$60,000 Fee Award Goes POOF! After High Court Decision. In Los Angeles County v. Humphries, Case No. 09-350 (U.S. Nov. 30, 2010), the United States Supreme Court decided that the Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) “policy or custom” requirement applied to civil rights cases
Matter Remanded To Decide Sanctions for One Germane RFA. Appellate courts do scrutinize costs of proof sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 carefully, as the next case demonstrates. The trial court in Windward Capital Management Co. v. Christenson, Case No. B210898 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 13, 2010) (unpublished) imposed costs
Second District, Division 2 Strikes Fee Award. Here is a reminder that fee entitlement is a key liminal concern for review of any attorney’s fees award. The failure to plead a claim allowing for fee recovery can and often will be fatal to the ability to recoup substantial attorney’s fees. The next case is
Ninth Circuit Remands $136,537.83 Fee Award After Reversing and Granting Plaintiff More Relief. Here is a reverse POOF! Plaintiff in Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case Nos. 08-55867 et al. (9th Cir. July 26, 2010, amended Sept. 22, 2010) (for publication) won one claim in an American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Second District, Division 3 Finds Trustee Had Reasonable Cause to Contest Beneficiary Claims. In our category “Probate,” we previously have examined Probate Code section 17211(b), which allows attorney’s fees to be awarded to a beneficiary contesting a trustee’s account if the lower court determines that the trustee’s opposition was made without “reasonable cause”
