Cases: POOF!

Private Attorney General: $1.2 Million Fee Recovery Under CCP § 1021.5 Goes POOF! When Court Of Appeal Determines That Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Was Not Catalyst For Defense Withdrawal From Overall Project

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

Rather, A Non-Party’s Withdrawal Motivated The Project’s Demise, Not Plaintiff’s CEQA Action.             We many times have posted on the fact that there are very distinct elements to be satisfied under California’s private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5, including other requirements where a “catalyst theory” is being pursued. The next case, AG Land Trust […]

Homeowner Associations/POOF!:  2/4 DCA Reinstates Homeowner’s Breach Of Fiduciary/Quiet Title Claims And Allows Further Amendment Of Slander Of Title Claim, Which Causes Attorney’s Fees Award To HOA As Prevailing Party To Go POOF!

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: POOF!

$249,861.50 Fee Award Goes Away For Now.             In Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes, Case Nos. B278198/B279671 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 23, 2018) (unpublished), homeowner sued HOA for breach of fiduciary duty, slander of title, and quiet title arising from a tree trimming dispute between neighbors.  (Boy, oh boy,

Fee Clause Interpretation:  Trial Judge’s Award Of Fees Based On Promissory Note Fees Clause Was Erroneous

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

$53,637 Contractual Fees Award Went POOF! On Appeal.             In Clark v. Delay, Case No. D072856 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 19, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff filed suit over a partnership dissolution dispute mainly involving the claim that plaintiff did not get insurance proceeds under a buy-sell type of alleged oral arrangement.  Among other documents, there

Section 1717 And Poof!: Plaintiff Timely Dismissed Contract-Based Claims To Avoid 1717 Exposure Before Terminating Sanctions Hearing Was Decided

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

  Terminating Sanctions Motion Was Not On The Merits, So Voluntarily Dismissal Was Timely For Fee Avoidance Purposes. Skating on ice.  Irving Brokaw, c1908-1916.  Library of Congress.     Timing can be everything, as the next case demonstrates.     In Liu v. Trask, Case No. B258112 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 15, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff eventually

Eminent Domain/POOF!: Postjudgment Fee Awards Against Condemnor In Eminent Domain Action Reversed Because Owner’s Demand Was Not Reasonable And Agency’s Demand Was Not Unreasonable

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

  $122.650 In Awarded Attorney’s Fees And $61,007.34 In Expert Fees Went Away On Appeal – POOF!      In San Diego Assn. of Governments (SANDAG) v. Vanta, Case Nos. D065476 & D066560 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 20, 2016) (unpublished), Vanta obtained a $1,441,095.20 compensatory award in an eminent domain case after Vanta offered to

Homeowner Associations/POOF!: $159,269.61 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs To HOA Evaporated On Appeal In Landscaping Plan Submission Dispute

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: POOF!

  Sobering Case for HOAs, Good One for Homeowners.      Winchester Community Assn. v. Perrotta, Case No. C075562 (3d Dist. July 21, 2016) (unpublished) involved a situation where homeowners and an HOA got into a dispute over the review of submission of landscaping plans. Association won at the trial level and was awarded attorney’s fees

Intellectual Property, POOF!, Celebrities: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment In Favor Of Madonna, Producer Of The Song “Vogue,” And Others Based on De Minimis Copyright “Copying”

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: POOF!

  However, Attorney’s Fees Award For The Material Girl And Other Defendants Reversed Because Plaintiff’s Theory Was Not Objectively Unreasonable.   Source:  Wikipedia, Article “Madonna.”  Author: Olavtenbroek.   Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.     Well, VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Madonna Ciccone, Nos. 13-57104/14-55837 (9th Cir. June 2, 2016) (published) does involve the “Material Girl”

Deed Of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation, POOF!: One Action Rule Barred Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Lender Based On Wording In Trust Deed Fees Clause

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

  Result Was That Trial Court’s Award Of $175,000 In Fees Went POOF!      The lender in HSBC Bank, USA v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. B266405 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 16, 2016) (unpublished) likely was surprised by the result in this case, but it also shows you how powerful the one action

Fee Clause Interpretation/POOF!/Prevailing Party: Remand To Clarify Damages Awarded To Nonprevailing Plaintiff Real Estate Buyers Meant Substantial Fee Award To Prevailing Real Estate Seller Needed To Be Revisited On Remand

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Award of Over $477,000 in Fees/Costs Went POOF!      In Fong v. Sheridan, Case Nos. A144286/A14522 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 21, 2016) (unpublished), buyers of seaside property sued seller and a dual broker agent for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission after dual agent told buyers at a pre-sale stage

Scroll to Top