Cases: POOF!

Appealability, POOF!: Reversal Of Merits Judgment For $390,184 In Damages Also Meant That A $365,065 Prevailing Parties’ Fees Award Went POOF!

Cases: Appealability, Cases: POOF!

No Separate Appeal Of The Fees Award Was Necessary To Extinguish The Fees Award—Although Prudent Appellate Practitioners Usually Appeal Separately To Be Cautious.             In Medical Benefits Administration, Inc. v. Nivano Physicians, Case No. C093214 (3d Dist. Apr. 1, 2022) (unpublished), prevailing parties were awarded $365,065 in attorney’s fees after winning $390,184 in damages.   However, […]

POOF! Earlier Reversal of Judgment On Less Than All Causes of Action Required Reversal Of Subsequent Fees/Costs Award

Cases: POOF!

4/1 DCA So Rules In Unpublished Opinion.             In Cui v. Secured Capital Ltd. Partnership, Case No. D078538 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 2, 2021) (unpublished), a trial judge entered a $97,000 fees/costs award against a commercial tenant based on tort and premises liability claims against landlord and its real estate broker about the suitability

Fee Clause Interpretation, POOF! After A Merits Reversal, Language Of The Fees Clause Meant That The Reversed Party Did Not Prevail

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

Fee Clauses Without Prevailing Party Language Have Such A Condition Implied.             Drink Tank Ventures, LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd., Case Nos. B29881/B302215 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 10, 2021) (published) is an interesting case where a “prevailing party” had its intentional interference claim reversed as a matter of law.  At the

Private Attorney General, POOF!: Reversal Of CEQA Parking Lot Issue Petition In Entirety Also Vacated Private Attorney General Fee Award

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

$154,000 In Fees Went POOF!             The appellate court in Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Authority, Case Nos. B303494 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 19, 2021) (published) reversed a CEQA petitioner’s win on a parking lot issue in entirety.  Petitioner had won $154,000 in private attorney general statute fees (used

POOF!, Unlicensed Contractors: $155,008.50 Fee Award Against Unlicensed Contractor Under CCP § 1029.8(a) Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Absence Of True Injury To Owners Did Not Justify An Award Even Though Substantial Payments To Unlicensed Contractor Disgorged Under B&P § 7031(b).             When you are dealing with fee entitlement, frequently, statutory interpretation is involved.  If that is the case, you get de novo review—which can lead to a reversal of a fee award

Ethics, POOF!, SLAPP!: Attorney Fees And Costs Awarded To Successfully SLAPPing Defendants Goes POOF! With Reversal Of Trial Court’s Partial Grant Of Defendants’ SLAPP Motion

Cases: Ethics, Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Defendants’ Internet And Twitter Statements Against Plaintiffs Consisted Mainly Of "Vulgar And/Or Adolescent Personal Insults, Misogynistic, Racist, And Xenophobic Comments, And Other Slurs Having Nothing To Do With Any Reasoned Discussion Of Trustworthiness, Competence, Or Any Other 'Public Issue Or An Issue Of Public Interest.'”             In Block v. Bramzon, Case Nos. B292129/B297198 (2d

Appealability, Landlord-Tenant, POOF!: Reversal Of Unlawful Detainer Judgment Against Landlords Required Reversal Of Related Attorney’s Fees/Costs Award

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: POOF!

In Separate Merits Appeal, Appeal Was Cognizable Although Possession Returned To Landlords During Appeal Because Review Would Determine Landlord Liability For Fees/Costs.             In Lee v. Kotyluk, Case No. G058631 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 7, 2021) (published), landlords sought to evict a commercial tenant for selling marijuana without a license.  The lower court found

Poof!, SLAPP: Trial Court’s Award Of $11,075 In Attorney Fees And Costs To Successfully SLAPPing Defendant Goes Poof! When 4/3 DCA Reverses SLAPP Grant

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Plaintiff’s Attempt To Initiate A Review Hearing With Private Swim Club On Coach’s Conduct Did Not Qualify As A Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(1) Official Proceeding Authorized By Law, And Swim Club’s Responding Accusation Against Plaintiff’s Son Did Not Qualify As An Issue Of Public Interest Pursuant To Anti-SLAPP Law.             In

Arbitration, POOF!: By Invalidating Portions Of An Arbitration Award And Remanding On Other Issues, Substantial Attorney’s Fees And Costs Award Against Arbitration Claimant/Counter-Respondent Also Sent Back For A Revisit

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: POOF!

Principal Reasons For Reversal Were That Certain Aspects Of The Employment Agreement Violated Business And Professions Code Section 16600.             Claimant/counter-claim respondent, former employee, was hammered pretty hard in an employment arbitration when the arbitrator rejected his claim for a $300,000 deferred bonus, found for employer on a counterclaim to the tune of $652,243 for

Scroll to Top