Reason Was That Plaintiff Was Not Successful Party As A Matter Of Law Under Catalyst Theory. Plaintiff in Washoe Meadows Community v. Cal. Dept. of Recreation, Case No. A139197 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 30, 2014) (unpublished) obtained an attorney’s fees award of $119,313.50 in a CEQA mandate proceeding involving a challenge to
$18,900 Fee Award Goes POOF!, But Opponent’s CCP § 128.7 Motion Correctly Denied Where Defendants Trimmed Fee Request Down After Getting Safe Harbor Documents. This next opinion, Ashegian v. Beirne, Case No. B254020 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished), is interesting because it deals with a first impression issue relating to
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
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
$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individual in Norton v. San Bernardino City Unified School District, Case No. G049496 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 9, 2014) (unpublished).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
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
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 Bohm, Matsen, Kegel & Aguilera v. Bonilla, Case No. G048212 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 9, 2014) (unpublished), authored by Justice Bedsworth, had this to say about a default judgment which needed some more development on remand: “Once again, we reiterate that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
$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 Earlier, in Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park, Case No. D063027 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 19, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court overturned a lower court dismissal of certain tort claims based on the notion that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which has a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
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
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
