Ninth Circuit Takes Away Substantial Section 1983 Fee Award. Federal appeals court, too, illustrate our POOF! principle—substantial fee awards vanish when a favorable merits determination is reversed upon review. In Johnson v. Walton, Case Nos. 07-55935, 07-56238 & 07-56547 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009) (for publication), two plaintiffs were awarded a total of […]
Summary Judgment Reversal Also Overturns $62,747.78 Costs/Fee Award in Tenant’s Favor. POOF! gets another litigant again. In LBA Realty Fund II-WBP III, LLC v. K. Hovanian Forecast Homes, Case No. E044299 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 9, 2009) (unpublished), tenant must have been feeling pretty good after the trial court granted it summary
Reversal Means Award Goes POOF! The POOF! principle got illustrated again, recently, in Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments, Case No. H031468 (6th Dist. Mar. 4, 2009) (certified for publication). There, landlords had obtained a summary judgment against tenant in a contentious landlord-tenant lawsuit after tenant’s employer terminated her and asked the landlord
Fourth District, Division 3 Demonstrates, Yet Again, the POOF! Principle. The POOF! principle—that reversal of an underlying judgment generating attorney’s fees awards means the fee award will be reversed—is so commonly seen in decisions we discuss that it now has its own category on the left side of our Homepage. The next case
Sixth District Vacates $730,466.10 Default Judgment and Reinstates Defendant’s Answer. The next case is a good example of the POOF! principle. Plaintiff obtained a $730,466.10 default judgment against defendant, set up by the trial court’s grant of terminating sanctions for failure to respond to discovery requests. The only problem is that the record did
Second District, Division 7 Provides Guidance On Discretionary Decision Making Under CCP Section 1030. Code of Civil Procedure section 1030 vests trial courts with discretion to require out-of-state plaintiffs to post an undertaking to pay costs to prevailing defendants where there is a reasonable possibility of a decision favorable to the defense. The
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Trial Court’s Quantum Meruit Award of $364,110 to Attorney Instead. For attorneys entering into contingency fee arrangements with clients, it is essential to comply with Business and Professions Code section 6147, which requires that contingency fee agreements specify (1) the agreed-upon contingency fee rate, (2) the manner in which
Second District, Division 1 Reverses Supplemental Fee Award Based Upon Lack of Notice. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040, a judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment. Recoverable costs include attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment, where the original judgment includes a fee award pursuant
We are pleased that our fellow blawger, Greg May, presiding at The California Blog of Appeal, has recognized our inestimable contribution of the Poof Principle to California attorney's fees jurisprudence in his January 28, 2009 post. The American Heritage Dictionary (online) defines "poof" thusly: "Used to indicate a sudden vanishing: The magician waved a
Second District, Division 7 Publishes Decision in Decade Long Battle Arising From Credit Impairment Allegations. Although too long to recite in detail (43 pages in length), Sanai v. Saltz, Case Nos. B198217 & B202787 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 26, 2009) (certified for publication) chronicles a donnybrook between a former in pro per renter
