Fourth District, Division 2 So Rules in Unpublished Opinion. Reversal on appeal can have dire consequences, not to mention that fee awards can become moot. That is what happened in H & H Investments Co., Inc. v. Chang, Case Nos. E046900/E047471 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 17, 2010) (unpublished). Fortuna. Albrecht […]
Reversal is a $22 Million Swing for the Corporate Litigants. In our December 11, 2008 post, we reported on C.D. Cal. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter’s fee awards in EchoStar Satellite Corp. v. NDS Group PLC, Case No. 8:03-cv-00950-DOC-JTL. There, EchoStar was awarded $12,972,547.91 in fees and NDS was awarded $8,968,118.90 in fees
Second District, Division One Holds that a Tameny Claim Exists When Subsequent Employer Honors Putatively Invalid Restraint on Competition Entered Into Between Employee and Previous Employer – and Reversal of Attorney’s Fee Award Follows. A Tameny claim is a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, under Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,
Second District, Division 1 Follows the General Reversal Rule. In Steinman v. Malamed, Case Nos. B216291/B218554 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 28, 2010) (certified for publication), the appellate court reversed a dispute over prepayment under a settlement agreement with a fees clause. (The winning party reaped a $47,250 fee award.) So, that reversal meant
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Grandchildren’s Action Did Not Contest a Trustee’s Account, So That There Was No Fee Entitlement under Section 17211(b) –Soria Tale. An award of attorney’s fees under California law always depends on answering a crucial preliminary question—is there a fee entitlement basis based on contract or statute. The answer
Second District, Division 1 Reverses Unlawful Detainer Judgment and Fee Award Based on Finding Five U.D. Notices Insufficient in Nature. The POOF! principle is one that we coined for what generally happens when a merits judgment is reversed—that reversal usually means that a related attorney’s fees award also gets reversed. Aside from
Second District, Division 1 Rules Plaintiff’s Mandate Challenge to Compel City To Award a Contract Through Competitive Bidding Not Subject to anti-SLAPP Statute. City of Pico Rivera likely felt pretty good after SLAPPing a plaintiff business’s mandate challenge to City’s invalidation of a contract with plaintiff and reentry into a contract with one of
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.2 Is Interpreted to Require a Party Seeking to Compel Arbitration to Plead and Prove a Prior Demand for Arbitration Under the Parties’ Arbitration Agreement and a Refusal to Arbitrate Thereunder. In the next case, Homeowner Association successfully petitioned to arbitrate a dispute with a homeowner, only to have the
First District, Division 3 Reverses Fee Award. As we have seen in cases reviewed in our category “SLAPP,” prevailing defendants on SLAPP motions are entitled to mandatory reasonable attorney’s fees. However, plaintiffs can get them if the court finds that the defendant’s SLAPP motion was frivolous or intended for dilatory purposes. Code Civ. Proc.,
Substantial Fee Award Reversed Because Fees Provision Did Not Reach Noncontract Recovery, While Rest of Trial Court’s Fee/Costs Orders Affirmed on Appeal. In Gaggero v. First Federal Bank of California, Case No. B207273 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2009) (unpublished), Borrower voluntarily dismissed with prejudice his equitable, statutory and breach of contract claims,
