Cases: POOF!

Costs/Section 1717/Prevailing Party/Poof!: Former Client Prevailing In Fee Arbitration/Bench Trial Was Prevailing Party, Such That $ 1.16 Million Fee Award Against Client And In Favor Of Former Attorney Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Sears v. Baccaglio Decision Found Not Viable CCP § 1032 “Prevailing Party” Law.      This one is an interesting one under section 1717/CCP § 1032 routine costs jurisprudence.      Here, client at first suffered a default judgment of $86,676.88 in favor of former attorney, but client obtained relief from the default judgment from the […]

Private Attorney General Fees: Award Of Fees To Patient Is Overturned Because He Did Not Show Enforcement Of Public Right Was Necessary

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

Fee Award Of $126,974.13 Goes Poof !     The Sixth District has overturned a fee award to an unfortunate dental patient for injuries arising from negligently performed dental work because private enforcement of the public right vindicated was unnecessary – a predicate for recovery of fees under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1021.5.  Bui

Civil Rights/POOF: Reversal Of Discrimination Claim Based On Instructional Error Meant Entire Fee/Costs Award Went POOF!

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: POOF!

  $503,450.02 Fee Award and $31,679.08 Costs Award Went Away For Now, Even Though Reversal As To Only One Defendant.      Plaintiff won a FEHA-based lawsuit against both a school district and an individual in Norton v. San Bernardino City Unified School District, Case No. G049496 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 9, 2014) (unpublished). After

Costs/POOF!/Family Law: Trifecta Of Appellate Decisions For 9/16/14

Cases: Costs, Cases: Family Law, Cases: POOF!

  Raceway Ford Cases, Case Nos. E054517/E056595 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 16, 2014) (published)      In this one, the defense—except for one fraud claim as to one plaintiff—waxed plaintiffs bringing various consumer and unfair competition claims. Defendants’ reward was a $1,503,084.50 fee recovery under various statutes. However, that went POOF! on appeal when several

Equity/POOF!/Substantiation Of Fees: Reversal Of Default Judgment To Ex-Attorneys Against Client Meant Award Of Fees Had To Be Revisited Also

Cases: Equity, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Further, Costs Needed To Be Authenticated Better.      Bohm, Matsen, Kegel & Aguilera v. Bonilla, Case No. G048212 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 9, 2014) (unpublished), authored by Justice Bedsworth, had this to say about a default judgment which needed some more development on remand: “Once again, we reiterate that obtaining a default is

POOF!/Prevailing Party/Trade Secrets: Prior Reversal Of Tort Claim Dismissals In Trade Secret Case Meant Attorney’s Fees Award Had To Be Overturned Also

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Trade Secrets

  $1.5 Million Award Went POOF!      Earlier, in Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park, Case No. D063027 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 19, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court overturned a lower court dismissal of certain tort claims based on the notion that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which has a fee-shifting provision if

Civil Rights/Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Winning Mandate In Riverside County Termination Case Gets $99,665 In Fees Evaporated On Appeal

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

  Neither CCP § 1021.5 Nor 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Supported Fee Award.      In Rivera v. County of Riverside, Case No. E055956 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained mandate for an administrative hearing based on her termination by the County of Riverside under unusual factual circumstances, eventually leading to a

Costs/POOF/SLAPP: Two-Fer—Appellate Costs Award Affirmed Based On Costs Memorandum And $37,857.97 SLAPP Fees/Costs Award Goes POOF! Upon Reversal Of SLAPP Grant

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Karnazes v. Hartford, Case No. A139421 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 27, 2014) (unpublished) ​In a long-standing antagonistic battle between two former law partners, a cross-respondent was awarded costs by the appellate court after a cross-appeal was dismissed. The winner then filed a costs memo for $627.50 in appeals costs, prompting yet another appeal after

POOF!/Retainer Agreement/Prevailing Party and Section 1717: Appellate Court’s Reversal of Fee Disgorgement Order Meant Remand Necessary To See Who Prevailed

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

  Client’s Fee/Costs Recovery of $688,634 Goes POOF! For Now.      In Fleischman v. Law Office of Paul Stanton, Case No. B216898 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 12, 2014) (unpublished), which involved nasty conservatorship/elder abuse claims among trust beneficiaries with respect to a deceased trustee, client was able to invalidate a retainer agreement which placed

Scroll to Top