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 In Gaggero v. First Federal Bank of California, Case No. B207273 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2009) (unpublished), Borrower voluntarily dismissed with prejudice his equitable, statutory and breach of contract claims,
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds No Predicate Basis Under CCP Section 724.080 to Award Fees For Failing To Record a Judgment Satisfaction. Here is a Thanksgiving gift to everyone in a wild family law dispute. We knew that this one would be good when it began this way: “Family law cases, as we said
Second District, Division 7 Gives Us Another Poof! Example. For those of you following this blog, you know that we have a category “POOF!” This is where we survey cases that show hefty fee awards usually get reversed when the supporting merits judgment is reversed, vacated or modified. Here is another one. In
Second District, Division 4 Finds No Basis To Award Fees To A True Nonparty. We do get email feedback from readers, for which we thank you. Sometimes we can be of help, sometimes we can’t, but we do usually respond one way or the other. One reader wanted some posts on void judgments.
