“Wash” Sentiment Of Lower Court Endorsed By Appellate Court On Review. It’s a wash. Louise Rosskam, photographer. July 1940. Library of Congress. In Yee v. Richance HB, LLC, Case No. G049598 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff/cross-defendant and defendant/cross-complainant got into a real estate dispute over easement rights. The […]
POOF!: Award of Fees/Costs To Plaintiff Reversed, With Remand To Award Fees/Costs To Prevailing Trustee. Torigian v. WT Capital Lender Services, Case No. F068393 (5th Dist. June 24, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision, authored by Acting Presiding Justice Cornell, where a neutral trustee under a deed of trust was found to
Plaintiff Prevailed On Practical Level, Although Trial Judge Found It “Was Close.” This next one recalls to mind the quote “close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.” Although finding the prevailing party issue to be closed, the prevailing party prevailed enough to garner $104,718.80 in attorney’s fees and additional costs in
Dept. of Parks and Recreation v. Schoendorf, Case No. H039321 (6th Dist. May 26, 2015) (unpublished). In this one, an appellate court denied $300,000 in attorney’s fees against the State under a settlement agreement where “reasonable diligence” governed the fee entitlement. Given that the prevailing party determination was discretionary under this clause and
Current Section 218.5, Requiring Bad Faith By Employee, Not Retroactive Before January 1, 2014. In Quiles v. Koji’s Japan Inc., Case No. G049238 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 3, 2015) (unpublished), employee in an employment case, involving multiple claims including meal breaks, added LLC defendant on an alter ego theory. Eventually, LLC defendant
Fee Request Was Premature; Appellate Court Refused To Find Equitable Fee Entitlement Basis. Plaintiffs obtained reversal of a case dismissal when the appellate court determined some claims survived, being awarded costs on appeal. However, as we have seen from prior post, costs on appeal does not mean fees are necessarily awarded for the
No Clear Winner Emerged In This One. Where litigants in a case involving both a complaint and cross-complaint win only some claims (but with a broad rental agreement fees clause), the trial judge has discretion to determine whether any side “prevailed” based on a pragmatic inquiry. In Barrera v. Jensen, Case Nos. A136322/A137418
$202,882.50 In Fees Had Been Requested. Portugal v. Sewer and Pipeline Contractor, Inc., Case No. B251730 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished) dealt with a former employee suing an employer for minimum wage/overtime compensation violations. Employee served a 998 offer, which did not allocate a $20,000 settlement offer among claims and
No One Prevailed in This Case, Both Trial and Appellate Courts Agreed, Under The Facts—But Prior Discovery Sanctions Award Did Survive. The California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.) [DPA] does have a reciprocal fee-shifting provision in favor of a “prevailing party.” (Unlike the American with Disabilities Act [ADA], which
Fee Entitlement Not Present; Normal Routine Prevailing Party Costs Definition Did Not Apply Based On A Pragmatic Inquiry. In City of Ridgecrest v. Howard, Case No. F068679 (5th Dist. Mar. 5, 2015) (unpublished), defendants were ordered to abate a public nuisance on properties having alleged dilapidated equipment and other items. However, one defendant
