Cases: POOF!

CCP Section 1021.5: $571,237.75 Fee Award Reversed And Remanded Because Trial Court Applied Improper “Out Of Proportion” And “Weighing” Tests

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

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. […]

POOF!: Summary Judgment Reversal In City’s Favor Causes Tumble Of $245,130 Fee Recovery By Plaintiff

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

POOF!: Civil Rights Fees Award Of $260,782.50 Is Vacated Upon Reversal of Qualified Immunity Ruling

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: POOF!

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

Another POOF!: Defendants’ $55,000 Fees/Costs Award Goes Away When Court of Appeal Reverses Summary Judgment In Landlord-Tenant Lawsuit

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Terminating Sanctions And Substantial Default Judgment Reversed Because Of Failure To Show Willfulness

Cases: Discovery, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Sanctions

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

Undertaking For Costs: Trial Courts Must Use CRC 3.53(b) Factors In Exercising Discretion With Respect To Out-of-State Indigent Plaintiffs

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Undertaking

  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

Retainer Agreements: Unhappy Lawyer Loses Potential $2 Million Contingency Fee Award Based On Noncompliance With Business and Professions Code Section 6147

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Retainer Agreements

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

Scroll to Top