Cases: POOF!

POOF!: Trial Court’s Granting Of Defendant’s Motion For Relief From Default Judgment Of $1,402,124, Which Included $103,728 In Attorney Fees And $1,997 In Costs, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: POOF!

Plaintiff Failed To Comply With The Statutory Requirements For Substitute Service Of Process.             Code Civ. Proc. section 415.20(b) provides the process by which substitute service of a summons and complaint may be made upon a party: “If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person […]

Arbitration, POOF! Arbitrator’s Award To Defendant Of $258,181.03 In Attorney Fees Goes POOF! On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: POOF!

Arbitrator Exceeded Authority On Remand By Conducting Arbitration Inconsistent With Instructions From The 4/1 DCA             It may not happen often, but arbitration awards do occasionally get reversed.  In this case, litigants are now returning for round three.             In the first round, plaintiffs received an arbitration award of $30,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. 

Intellectual Property, POOF!: Federal Circuit Court Of Appeals Reverses $1.1 Million “Exceptional Case” Fee Award In Patent/Trademark/Trademark Litigation

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: POOF!

The Problem Was That The Claims Were Dismissed Before Fully Adjudicated, With The Fee Claimant Failing to Show In Detail Why They Were Wholly Lacking In Merit.             In Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd., No. 2019-1454 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2020) (precedential), spillproof cup rivals engaged in federal intellectual property litigation, with Plaintiff

Eminent Domain, POOF!: Reversal Of $328,000 Inverse Condemnation Merits Judgment Meant That $529,540.40 Fees/Costs Award Against City Of San Diego Went POOF!

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

Merits Reversal Hinged On City Not Bearing Responsibility For Private Pipeline Non-Maintenance Where City Refused A Public Dedication Offer.             In Ruiz v. County of San Diego, Case No. D074654 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 17, 2020) (unpublished), Plaintiff homeowners obtained a $328,000 inverse condemnation award against the County of

Eminent Domain, POOF!: Appellate Court’s Reversal Of Substantial Inverse Condemnation Judgment Also Meant Substantial Fee Award Fell

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

$818,544 In CCP § 1036 Fees And $182,627 In Costs Went POOF!             Code of Civil Procedure section 1036 provides:  “In any inverse condemnation proceeding, the court rendering judgment for the plaintiff by awarding compensation, or the attorney representing the public entity who effects a settlement of that proceeding, shall determine and award or allow

POOF!, Probate: Four Successor Trustees’ Attorney’s Fees Of $74,824.50 Went POOF! Based Upon Failure To Show One Beneficiary Petition Was Prosecuted In Bad Faith And With No Differentiation Of Fees Between Two Petitions

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Probate

Trustees Failure To File A Respondents’ Brief Sealed The Result!             A beneficiary filing two petitions concerning two qualified personal residence trusts likely was shocked when a probate court granted $74,824.50 in attorney’s fees to four successor trustees after beneficiary voluntarily dismissed petitions after obtaining some desired results.  Beneficiary did well to appeal in Sterne

POOF!: Plaintiff Prevailing On Summary Adjudication Has His Contractual Damages Award, Interest, Costs And Contractual Attorney’s Fees Award Go POOF! On Appeal

Cases: POOF!

The Trial Court Erred In Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Adjudication On Breach Of Contract Claim Because Defendants Had Established A Triable Issue Of Fact, And That Error Prejudiced The Subsequent Bench Trial On Other Claims.             In Groth v. Gilad, Case Nos. A151497 and A150493 (1st Dist., Div. 5 November 18, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff

Assignment, POOF!, Section 1717: Plaintiff’s $169,534.60 Fees Award Goes POOF! On Appeal

Cases: Assignment, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

Although The Dispute Concerned Contractual Rights, The Contractual Attorney Fees Provision Relied Upon In Issuing Award Did Not Apply Because There Was No Breach Of Contract.             In McAlister Investments, Inc. v. Thomas, Case No. G056330 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 30, 2019) (unpublished), neighboring land owners got into a dispute pertaining to a

Scroll to Top