Cases: POOF!

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

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

Scroll to Top