Cases: POOF!

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

Post-Judgment Enforcement: Supplemental Costs Memorandum Seeking Fees Must Be Served Upon Judgment Debtor

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: POOF!

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

POOF! Principle: Top 6 Cases In Last Eight Months

Cases: Appealability, Cases: POOF!

     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

Mixed Result In Decade Long Litigation: Substantial Attorney’s Fees Award Goes “Poof” When Plaintiff Should Have Been Given Leave To Amend, But Plaintiff Denied Post-Judgment Enforcement Fees

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: POOF!

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

Civil Code Section 1717 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 998: Poof! Substantial Fee/Cost Award Reversed Where Underlying Judgment Was Reversed

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

    Fourth District, Division Three Finds That Abandonment of Action Must Be Clear Before Dismissal Is Entered; With Dismissal Gone, Fee/Cost Award Is Also Reversed.      California litigators frequently have heard the mantra that "cases are to be tried or heard on the merits." In line with that, there are corollary principles, such as pretrial

Scroll to Top