Cases: Preemption

Appealability, Arbitration, Employment, Preemption: $176,687.96 Fees And Sanctions Award For Employer’s Failure To Advance Fees Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Preemption

Employers Not Paying Fees Upfront Can Be Exposed To Further Arbitration Expenses Before the Axe Comes Down; Appellate Court Found No FAA Preemption, With This Preemption Issue Now Being Reviewed By The California Supreme Court.                Although unpublished, Costa-Fleeson v. Americor Funding, Inc., Case No. G062962 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 1, 2024) (unpublished) is […]

Consumer Statutes, Preemption: FTC’s Holder Rule Does Not Limit Recovery Against Lender Where State Prevailing Party Fee Statute Allows For Recovery Of Fees By Installment Credit Sale Debtor

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Preemption

California Supreme Court Resolves Split In DCA Thinking, Disapproving Lafferty And Spikener Decisions.             In Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc., Case No. S267576 (Cal. Supreme Ct. May 26, 2022) (published), our state supreme court confronted the FTC’s Holder Rule which requires consumer credit contracts to contain warnings that (1) all defenses against the seller of

Consumer Statutes, Preemption: FTC Holder Rule Was To Be Applied Retroactively Such That Attorney’s Fees Denial Should Be Reversed

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Preemption

Civil Code Section 1495.5 Recent Enactments Sealed The Result.             The Fifth District, in Reyes v. Beneficial State Bank, Case No. F080827 (5th Dist. Mar. 2022) (published), had to confront a FTC Holder Rule argument that it capped attorney’s fees as “recovery” by its terms.  The appellate court, relying on Pulliam (see our Feb. 2,

Preemption: Federal Crop Insurance Act Requires Ranchers To Obtain Determination From Federal Crop Insurance Corporation To Seek Extra-Contractual Damages, Fees, Or Expenses

Cases: Preemption

Case Demonstrates How Agricultural Cases Are Subject To Governmental Regulations.             Although not directly involving an attorney’s fees or costs issue, we still post on Sunset Ranches, Inc. v. NAU Country Ins. Co., Case No. F078916 (5th Dist. Aug. 16, 2021) (unpublished) because it shows how agricultural litigation disputes may face federal preemption principles.  In

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Multipliers, Preemption: Prevailing Lemon Law Plaintiff Winning Only $21,957.25 In Damages At Jury Trial Properly Awarded $169,602 In Attorney Fees, Inclusive Of .2 Multiplier, Against Dealership And Finance Company

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Preemption

Apportionment Was Not Necessary Due To Intertwined Claims, Multiplier Was Appropriate Given Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Contingency Risk, And – Contrary To Lafferty And Spikener – 2/5 DCA Determined That The Holder Rule Does Not Limit The Attorney Fees A Plaintiff May Recover From A Creditor-Assignee.             For a great discussion on the Holder Rule cap and

Consumer Statutes, Preemption: FTC’s Holder Rule For Consumer Installment Sale Contracts Does Limit Consumer’s Fee Recovery Per FTC Construction

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Preemption

California Civil Code Section 1459.5’s Effort To Repeal Was Preempted By FTC Interpretation.             Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 25 Cal.App.5th 398, 410-414 (2018) [reviewed in our July 20, 2018 post] held that a debtor cannot recover damages and attorney’s fees for a Holder Rule claim under a consumer installment sales contract where a

Preemption, SLAPP: Cartwright Act’s Unilateral Fee-Shifting Provision In Favor Of Prevailing Plaintiffs Did Not Override SLAPP Fee-Shifting In Favor Of Partially Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Preemption, Cases: SLAPP

No Implied Override Was Found Appropriate By Appellate Court.             Plaintiff brought a Cartwright Act lawsuit against 11 defendants, some of whom were partially successful on anti-SLAPP motions—with the SLAPP statute allowing for mandatory fee awards to prevailing defendants. The rub here was that the Cartwright Act only has a unilateral fee-shifting provision in favor

Intellectual Property, Preemption, Prevailing Party: Defendants’ Prevailing On Preemption Claim Under State Statute With Mandatory Fees Clause Was Entitled To Appellate Fees For The Win

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Preemption, Cases: Prevailing Party

Even Though A Few Sliver Claims Remained, Defendants Prevailed Because Those Claims Are Not Subject To Fee Shifting.             The Ninth Circuit, in an earlier appeal, had decided that plaintiffs’ claims for resale royalties under the California Resale Royalties Act (CRRA) largely were preempted by the 1976 Copyright Act for any claims occurring after January

Civil Rights, Preemption: Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Denial Of Fees To Prevailing Defendant In California Disabled Persons Act/American with Disabilities Act Case

Cases: Preemption

  Panel Follows SoBreck, Choosing Not To Reconsider In Light of State Court Jankey Decision To The Contrary—Federal/State Conflict Exists Here.      In Kohler v. Presidio International, Inc., Case Nos. 13-55808/13-56217 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2015) (published), a disabled plaintiff challenged certain checkout counters, dressing room bench, and blocked aisles in an Eddie Bauer Outlet

Section 998: Ninth Circuit Rules That Arizona Pre-Trial Fee Shifting Statute Is Trumped by F.R.Civ.P. 68

Cases: Preemption, Cases: Section 998

Decision May Have Implications for Application of CCP § 998 in Diversity Cases.      An important decision for federal diversity cases came out yesterday from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, pitting F.R.Civ.P. 68 against a state pre-trial settlement scheme in Arizona.      In Goldberg v. Pacific Indemnity Co., Case No. 09-16243 (9th Cir. Dec.

Scroll to Top