Cases: POOF!

Family Law, Judgment Enforcement, And POOF!: Wild Set Of Facts Convinces Appellate Court To Reverse $307,145.22 Fee Recovery By Husband Against Wife’s Lead Attorneys

Cases: Family Law, Cases: POOF!

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 […]

Reverse POOF!: Losing Homeowners, After Modification On Appeal, Are Entitled To Pursue Recovery Of Court Costs As Prevailing Parties

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

  Fifth District Determines Unlicensed Contractors May Not Offset Reimbursement/Disgorgement Claims Under Unlicensed Contractors Law.      Here is a spin on our category POOF!, where a reversal usually means a fee/costs award goes away for the time being. This next case is a reverse POOF!, where a denial of a costs award was reversed and

Blog Update: Burlage Decision On Rehearing …

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: POOF!

No Different Result.      On our September 2, 2009 post, we reported on the Burlage decision, which reversed confirmation of a substantial arbitration decision (complete with the overturning of a large fee award). We can now report that, on October 20, 2009, the Second District, Division 6, issued an opinion on rehearing that came to

CCP 1021. 5 And Mootness: Appellate Court Determines Mootness Doctrine Does Not Preclude Review Of $78,897.95 Fee Award Against Clerk And Registrar, Reversing Fee Award Based On Merits Reversal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 5 Also Reverses Fee Award Against Clerk, Even Though Only Registrar Appealed the Merits Judgment.      Here is an interesting one for our appellate followers. It primarily deals with a mootness issue and its interplay with the fee award in the case.      In Carson Citizens for Reform v. Kawagoe, Case

POOF!: Reversal Of $30 Million Interference Judgment Means Substantial Costs Awards Went POOF! Too

Cases: POOF!

Costs Reversed For Redetermination After Future Retrial Or After Appellate Remand in Indian Casino Development Case.      The Fourth District, Division One Court of Appeal recently reversed a $30 million interference judgment, based on an inconsistent jury verdict, in an Indian casino development drama that was played out in San Diego County Superior Court.     

POOF!: Arbitration and CEQA Fee Awards Fall With Reversal of Underlying Matters

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Two Appellate Courts Show That Fees May Rise and Fall With Later Dispositions. Arbitration—Burlage v. Superior Court, Case No. B211431 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 31, 2009) (certified for publication)      This case is going to attract attention, because Presiding Justice Gilbert (author of a 2-1 majority opinion) has taken on the principle that Moncharch

SLAPP Trifecta: Fees Are Mandatory To Winning Defendant … But Can Only Be Temporary If Plaintiff Obtains a (POOF!) Reversal On Appeal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Next Slate of SLAPP Decisions Illustrates the Principle.      Our category “SLAPP” will certainly give you readers a wealth of information on when SLAPP winners are happy or sad. Winning defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees for winning these motions, although the reasonableness caveat and need to sustain the result on

Hate Crime Statutes: Arbitration Expense and Fee Award Reversed And Remanded Because Armendariz Prohibition on Expenses Applies To Statutory Hate Crime Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division One, Does Remand For Proper Expense/Fee Determination and For Examination of Allocation Issues.      Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare, 24 Cal.4th 83, 110-113 (2000) determined that arbitral expenses beyond what a plaintiff litigant would have borne in a court case cannot be imposed in cases involving statutory rights enacted for a public

Scroll to Top