Cases: POOF!

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 A151497 and A150493 (1st Dist., Div. 5 November 18, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff […]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             In McAlister Investments, Inc. v. Thomas, Case No. G056330 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 30, 2019) (unpublished), neighboring land owners got into a dispute pertaining to a

Class Actions, Employment, POOF!: Class Action Win Of Labor Code Section 226 Penalties And Attorney Fees Against Employer Goes POOF! On Appeal

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

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

POOF!, Sanctions: $70,548.95 CCP § 128.5 Order Against Most Plaintiffs Reversed Based On Erroneous Denial Of Relief From Jury Trial Waiver

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Sanctions

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

Costs, POOF!, Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s CCP §1021.5 Fee Award Of $827,035 Went POOF! On Appeal

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

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

POOF!, Probate: Plaintiffs’ Award Of $500,000 In Attorney Fees Necessarily Falls With Reversal And Remand Of Trial Court’s Judgment On Appeal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Probate

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

Fees as Damages, Landlord/Tenant, Poof!: After Punitive Damages Reduction Of Almost $56 Million, Plaintiffs Walk Away With Judgment Of More Than $5 Million, But Watch It All Go POOF! On Appeal

Cases: Fees as Damages, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: POOF!

No Segregation Between Properly And Erroneously Awarded Amounts Meant Plaintiffs Lost The Full Amounts Of Their Awards For Compensatory Damages Of $1,289,000, Punitive Damages Of $1,289,000, Attorney Fees Of $2,385,773.70 and Costs Of $56,417.72         In Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, Case No. D071849, (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 28, 2019) (unpublished), sixty-nine current

Poof!, Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Trial Court Win Of $289,908 In Attorney’s Fees And $1,963 In Costs Goes POOF! On Appeal As Plaintiff Failed To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Under The California Environmental Quality Act

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

Plaintiff’s Failure To Object To The Project Before The City Council Approved It Meant Plaintiff Lacked Standing To Challenge The City’s Project Approval In Court         In Turn Down the Lights v. City of Monterey, Case Nos. H044656/H045556 (6th Dist., February 28, 2019) (unpublished), Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate on City’s determination that

Scroll to Top