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 In Wilson v. Lightner, Case No. D055083 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 31, 2011) (not for publication), parties in a bitter easement dispute reached a denouement when the trial court awarded successful defendants a postjudgment award of $341,295 as costs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,
$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
