Second District, Division 3 Reverses Fee Award. Summary judgments are one of the more frequently reversed adjudications, maybe second to sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend. The law in California is that reversal of a summary judgment means that the postjudgment fee and costs orders based upon the summary judgment also must be […]
District Court Will Reconsider Fees Upon Remand. The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA), does contain a provision allowing district courts to award fees and costs to parties “substantially prevailing” as against the United States under the statute. (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).) This statute, upon which California’s Public Records Act is
Plaintiff’s $719,000 Fees/Costs Award Goes POOF! We have surveyed several decisions in our category “POOF” that illustrate the principle that many reversals (partial or in full) will require a reversal of a fee/costs award and remand to reconsider after the dust has finally settled on the reversed claims in subsequent trial court proceedings. That
Second District, Division 8 Follows Myers-Campbell-Carr Line of Cases In a Scholarly Unpublished Decision. In our category “Indemnity,” we have surveyed cases where attorney’s fees have and have not been awarded where contracts contain indemnity clauses. The result frequently depends on the wording of the clauses. If the clauses only really cover exposure relating
Second District, Division 3 Finds No Incorporation of Other Fees Clauses to Sustain Award. One side to a joint venture agreement was vindicated completely with a defense jury verdict and was then awarded attorney’s fees of $75,000 (300 hours at a $250 hourly rate, out of a fee request in the $210-240,000 range). The
Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Summary Judgment Grant Under Marijuana Reform Statute Involving Job Applicants. The next case is an interesting one, although it again illustrates the POOF! principle—if a merits judgment is reversed, the fees award vanishes with it. Larson v. Casual Male Stores, LLC, Case Nos. D051554 & D052185 (4th Dist.,
Result Occurs in Unpublished Opinion by Fourth District, Division 2 POOF! strikes again. A trial court in Levy v. Pearson, Case No. E044934 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 3, 2009) (unpublished) granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion (which carries a mandatory award of fees in such a situation) and later awarded defendant $13,965 in
Fifth District Remands to Have Fee Award Decided Under the Proper Legal Standard. This is probably a semi-POOF! (POO) post, but we would surmise that winning CEQA challenger will get still get significant fees on remand. In Madera Irrigation Dist. v. Madera County Bd. of Supervisors (Freels), Case No. F054218 (5th Dist. Mar.
Fourth District, Division 1 Gives Domino Effect to Reversal. POOF! again strikes. City of San Diego obtained a partial reversal of a summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff who had also been awarded postjudgment fees of $245,130 under Government Code section 996.4, which pertains to a public employee’s right to reimbursement of
Second District, Division 7 Finds Mutual Mistake Gave Rise to Rescission, Overturning a Landlord Win and Favorable Attorney’s Fees Award. Here is another POOF! The Second District, Division 7, in Howard v. Encino Group Retail LLC, Case No. B204865 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 18, 2009) (unpublished) reversed a summary judgment in
