Case Pitted Two Large Los Angeles County Law Firms Against Each Other. Holy Cow, Batman! Here is a wow POOF!—showing how substantial fee awards will evaporate upon a reversal of a judgment. The case of Cussler v. Crusader Entertainment, LLC, Case Nos. B215815/B220761 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 8, 2010) (unpublished) […]
$2.4 Million Fee Award Goes Away. It is not often that we have a federal POOF! to share with you. However, here is a recent one. In F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records, Case Nos. 09-55817/09-5069 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2010) (for publication), plaintiff sued under contracts to recover a percentage of royalties
Reversal Meant $94,072.50 Fee Award Evaporated. Here is one showing that appellate courts will try to do equity depending on the facts of a particular dispute. (And, by making this comment, we in no way mean they ignore the law—quite to the contrary, as we have seen in numerous posts.) Unfortunately, for plaintiff and
Fourth District, Division 2 So Rules in Unpublished Opinion.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 E046900/E047471 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 17, 2010) (unpublished).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
