. . . . If Not, You May Lose Where A Sole Missing Documentary Page Is The Basis For A Fee Recovery. This next case is a real ouch! Not just a puncture wound, but a real wowie. In short, the plaintiff loaned money under a promissory note and obtained a $1 million […]
Court Did Not Have To Resolve Split in Appellate Authority On Whether Financial Condition Is Considered For “Reasonable Fee” Purposes, Because No Financial Evidence Was Presented Before The Trial Court. McNeil v. Symmetricom, Inc., Case No. H041067 (6th Dist. Apr. 12, 2016) (unpublished) involved a situation where plaintiffs dismissing a state court action
Considering Mixed Results On Noncontractual Claims Was Error. Justice Thompson, author of a 3-0 panel opinion in Sadr v. Sabet, Case No. G050493 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 5, 2016) (unpublished), provides us with an important nuance in cases where attorney’s fees awards are governed by Civil Code section 1717: the prevailing party
Defendant Did Not Prevail, For Routine Costs Purposes, By Obtaining Dismissal In This Situation. The California Supreme Court, in DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, Case No. S219236 (Cal. Supreme Court Mar. 10, 2016) (published), decided that a voluntarily dismissing plaintiff who received settlement money from the defendant was a prevailing
. . . At Least For Now, Depends On What Happens On Remand. Okay, all of our readers. To be a prevailing party, you have to wait until the “end game.” That means that partial reversals on appeal, especially as to different parties, well may await a further determination in a retrial before
However, One Party Did Clearly Prevail, But Got No More On Appeal. Both trial and appellate courts are faced with situations where some parties prevail to some extent, but then have to determine if one or more truly did prevail on a convincing basis. In Marina Pacifica Homeowners Assn. v. So. Cal.
Party Awarded Fees Prevailed, Plus Block Billing No Obstacle Where Apportionment Not Required. In Kern Water Bank Authority v. Grayson Service, Inc., Case Nos. F069806/F070549 (5th Dist. Feb. 3, 2016) (unpublished), litigant in a contentious lease dispute recovered $396,031 out of a requested $566,930. The Court of Appeal affirmed. It found that the
Fee Substantiation Issues Do Not Preclude An Award Of Fees To Prevailing Parties. In Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Emaron Homes, LLC, Case No. B261674 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 20, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case against certain defendants (some of whom were sued as alter egos) under a construction contract with a
Prevailing Party Status Had To Be Redetermined After Reversal. Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Case No. G049953 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 7, 2015) (published) shows how appellate practice is not for the faint of heart. The reviewing court will review the case for legal errors and will reverse based
$20,000 “Botched” Sale Resulted In Lots Of Damages And Fees, With A “Re-do” Based Upon Partial Reversals of Compensatory and Punitive Awards. You gotta love how appellate courts can summarize disputes. Take Young Electric Sign Co. v. PC Dixon 1, LLC, Case No. C072212 (3d Dist. Oct. 28, 2015) (unpublished), modified Nov. 30,
