Cases: POOF!

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 […]

Court of Appeal Holds that Trial Court Should Not Have Adjudicated Litigation Expense Claims Against Shareholder in Corporation Being Dissolved, Because Shareholder Had No Right to Be Heard in the Voluntary Dissolution.

Cases: POOF!

In Which Fourth District, Division Three Rules That Feud Among Three Attorneys Results in Lack of Due Process.      Because the next case is such an outlier, we were hard-pressed to find a pre-existing category on our blawg to label the case.  One label might be “Due Process”, but somehow that principle just hasn’t come

Private Attorney General: Trial Judge’s Fee Award Punctuated by Exclamation Point Punctured by Court of Appeal

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

First District, Division Two, Concludes Land Use Litigation Vindicated Only a Private Interest.      In its tentative decision in this land use case, the Mendocino County trial court stated the State Water Resources Control Board’s “handling of Rustic’s application has been unconscionable!”  [garish red color added to exclamation point for emphasis by blogger]. It added,

FOIA POOF!: District Court’s Award of $146,442 To Prevailing FOIA Plaintiff Reversed In Light Of Partial Reversal of Summary Judgment Grant

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

POOF!: Second District’s Reversal of Rent Control Ordinance Dispute Requires Remand To Reconsider Fee Awards

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Indemnity Clauses: Escrow Company Not Entitled To Fee Award Because Indemnity Clause Did Not Allow For First Party Recoupment Of Fees

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: POOF!

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

Class Action POOF!: Plaintiffs Lose $253,800 Summary Judgment Award And $107,000 Postjudgment Attorney’s Fees Award Then Evaporates

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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.,

Scroll to Top