Compensatory Award Was Only $62.127.20; Reversal Was Based On A 2-1 Opinion On The Substantial Evidence Issue. Just to show you how reversal on appeal for insubstantial evidence can result in havoc, we point you to the result in Flores v. County of Los Angeles Probation Dept., Case No. B287382 (2d Dist., Div. 2
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
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 A151497 and A150493 (1st Dist., Div. 5 November 18, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff
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 In McAlister Investments, Inc. v. Thomas, Case No. G056330 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 30, 2019) (unpublished), neighboring land owners got into a dispute pertaining to a
Sixth District Determined Cause Of Action Was Not Properly SLAPPed Because It Was Triggered By A Dispute That Arose In The Aftermath Of Previous Litigation, Not The Conduct In The Prior Litigation. GBR Magic Sands MHP, LLC v. Pecoraro, Case No. H044936 (6th Dist., Sept. 26, 2019) (unpublished) involves a dispute among family
Employer’s Failure To Include Premium Pay On Wage Statements For “On Duty” Meal And Rest Periods Did Not Trigger Penalties Because Premium Pay Is A Statutory Remedy For An Employer’s Conduct – Not An Amount “Earned” By The Employee. A certified class of former and current non-exempt employees brought a lawsuit against their
Also, Another Plaintiff Was Not Give Safe Harbor Notice In Time To Do Anything—So, A Reversal. The importance of the jury trial right was front and center in Mackovksa v. Viewcrest Road Properties, Case No. B288778 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 18, 2019) (published), although the ultimate merits reversal also made a reversal of
Reason Was That Gender Discrimination Was Not Proven As A Matter Of Law At Trial. Hughes v. County of Humboldt, Case Nos. A148940/A150526 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 28, 2019) (unpublished) shows how an appellate court can affirm but also take away where a jury verdict is not supported by legally sustainable evidence. Here,
Plaintiff Did Not Obtain Its Primary Litigation Objective Such That Fee Award Was Abuse Of Discretion; Prevailing Defendant’s Costs Request Was Improperly Stricken Because It Prevailed. San Diegans For Open Government v. City of San Diego & San Diego Tourism Marketing Dist. Corp., Case No. D072181 (4th Dist., Div. 1 April 4, 2019) (unpublished) shows
The Trial Court’s Inconsistencies In Its Findings And A Lack of Substantial Evidence Means A New Trial Is Required To Re-Evaluate The Claims And Defenses. Miranda v. Alford, Case No. G054897 (consolidated with G055167) (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 8, 2019) (unpublished) is a case involving a man’s wife of eight years, and
