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 Feb. 3, 2016) (unpublished), litigant in a contentious lease dispute recovered $396,031 out of a requested $566,930.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 In Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Emaron Homes, LLC, Case No. B261674 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 20, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case against certain defendants (some of whom were sued as alter egos) under a construction contract with a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 Oct. 28, 2015) (unpublished), modified Nov. 30,
$156,614.47 Fee Recovery Went POOF! On Appeal. Wasserman v. Ketelhut, Case No. B258642 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 1, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting common interest development case where multiple plaintiffs were fighting defendants over various CC&R governing document claims about defendants operating a vineyard which encroached on certain CID common areas. (BLOG
Failure to Provide Reporter’s Transcript Forfeited Challenge, But Fee Clause Was Broad Enough To Encompass Contract/Noncontract Claims. Plaintiff agreed to install electrical distribution service to defendant’s winery facility, with plaintiff suing on both contract/noncontract claims for defendant’s alleged failure to pay. Plaintiff sought $43,000 on his claims, while the defense argued only $18,000
Affirmance of Commission Merits Dispute Meant Fee Award Sustained Against Real Estate Agent. In Aliev v. Courtney, Case No. D064239 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 24, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff real estate purchaser challenged a commission paid to defendant salesperson, who eventually had to admit on appeal that neither he nor the brokerage company
Striking Fees Was Not Discrete Proceeding Allowing For Recovery. In Cooper v. Lavely & Singer, Case No. B261936 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 22, 2015) (unpublished), L&S won the merits of an arbitration case, but Cooper was successful in striking an arbitrator fee award in post-confirmation proceedings although the rest of the merits
Routine Costs Do Include Privately Retained Reporters Who Transcribe Court Hearings. In Kim v. Park, Case No. A139056 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 23, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded $107,450 in fees and $22,318.45 in costs after obtaining rescission of a purchase of a business, with the fees being awarded based on a
