Cases: POOF!

POOF!, Section 998: Make Sure Your 998 Offers Are Not Ambiguous And Only Targeted For Claim In the Lawsuit, With The Defense Losing A $231,458.30 Award On The Offer

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 998

If You Include Language Like “Or Could Have Been Brought,” This Might Well Be Invalidating For An Offer—Drafting Tip to All!                Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Enchante Accessories, Inc., Case No. B337902 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is an excellent reminder of how to structure CCP § 998 offers with releases

Costs, Employment, POOF!, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Proving Whistleblower Case, But Obtaining No Relief As Employer Proved A “Same-Decision Defense,” Was Erroneously Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under One-Way Whistleblower Statute, Labor Code 1102.5

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

$400,000 Fee Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law, With County Entitled To Routine Costs As The Prevailing Party Below.                In a “mixed-motive” whistleblower case, plaintiff proved the elements of his whistleblower claim, but he obtained no relief because defendant employer proved the “same-decision defense.”  The lower court in Lampkin v. County of Los

POOF!: Prevailing Plaintiff’s Appeal Of A Fee Denial Stayed Its Second Successful Effort To Have The Court Reconsider And Award Fees Of $4.479 Million, Which Meant The Second Fee Award Was Void

Cases: POOF!

CCP § 916 Appellate Stay Was The Key, Meaning the Large, Subsequent Fee Award Went POOF!                Although this may sound technical, the result in CDC San Francisco, LLC v. Critchfield Mechanical, Inc., Case No. A169224 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2025) (unpublished) shows how taking an appeal will stay subsequent efforts to obtain

Eminent Domain, POOF!: Fee Award Of $13 Million Against Condemnor Went POOF! On Appeal After Merits Reversal And Remand

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

Dispute Involved Town Of Apple Valley’s Effort To Obtain A Private Water System Through Condemnation.                Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water, Case No. E078348 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 15, 2025) (published) involved a more than 2-year battle in which Town of Apple Valley (TAV) attempted to acquire a private water

Landlord/Tenant, POOF!: Landlord’s Unlawful Detainer Judgment, Much Of It Attorney’s Fees, Went POOF On Appeal

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: POOF!

Landlord Accepted Rent Check After Notice To Vacate, Such That A Month-To-Month Tenancy Was Reinstated.                In Baca v. Kuang, Case No. A171071 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 13, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), defendant tenant appealed from an unlawful detainer judgment, consisting of $51,560 in contractual attorney’s fees and $24,000 in holdover rent. 

Fee Clause Interpretation, Poof!, Trade Secrets: Defendant Defeating Contractual Damages Claims Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Where Fees Clause Only Applied To Equitable/injunctive Relief Wins

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Trade Secrets

Results Is That $533,086.19 Fee Award Went POOF! On Appeal.                 The next case is a continuation of a case we earlier posted on, Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 556, discussed in our March 11, 2024 post.  There, plaintiff obtained preliminary and then later permanent injunctions against defendant in a trade

Class Actions, Employment, POOF!: Reversal Of Class Action Summary Adjudication On Class Meal/Rest Breaks Claim Meant Substantial Fee Award Reversed Also

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Plaintiffs’ Reasons To Not Reverse The Award Were Unpersuasive.                Acting Presiding Justice Segal, author on behalf of the 2/7 DCA in Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., Case No. B318867 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 19, 2024), confronted a very spirited opposition by plaintiffs/class winning substantial fees for why the reviewing court should not

POOF!: $737,932.84 Private Attorney General Fee Award Goes Away When Appellate Court Reverses As A Matter Of Law Favorable Determinations In Contentious Public Treatment Wastewater Permits Dispute

Cases: POOF!

Goes To Show You How Fortunes Can Change.             Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Board, Case No. B309151 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 27, 2023) (published) is a situation where plaintiff was awarded CCP § 1021.5 fees of $737,932.84 in a contentious public treatment wastewater permit dispute where plaintiff won on a

Scroll to Top