Owner Was Not Prevailing Party in Lemon Law Case Because Owner Did Not Recoup Main Objective in the Form of Civil Penalty. On January 3, 2015, we posted on MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. B251752 (2d Dist., Div. 8), which held among other things that a car owner in a lemon […]
Car Manufacturer Defendant Prevailed For Fees, But Might Be Liable For Some Routine Costs. Actually, we can say that counsel for Mercedes-Benz in this case made some good moves as far as mitigating fee/costs exposure. M-B was embroiled in a gripe from a car owner about excessive multiple repairs. Car owner sued, but
City Did Obtain Its Litigation Objectives As To Noncompliance With Garage Conversion Arrangement. In 2007, City of La Verne and defendants/owners of a residential property settled an ongoing lawsuit through a written settlement agreement by which the defendants agreed to convert an apartment on their property back into a garage within nine months
Denial Of Fees Would Ignore Realities of “Dual Track” Arbitration/Court Realities Of Modern Litigation. Mesa Shopping Center-East, LLC v. O Hill, Case No. G049205 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 23, 2014) (published) is an interesting case involving the propriety of Civil Code section 1717 court fees where there is a “dual track” case,
Lower Court Properly Denied Plaintiff’s Fee Request. If you lose all of your claims (even in the civil rights area), you likely are not the prevailing party. The appealing plaintiff found that out in Arevalo v. City of Long Beach, Case No. B250345 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 10, 2014) (unpublished). There,
Appellate Court Agrees With Trial Court Analysis, Which Departed From Contrary S.D. Cal. Federal Decision. Plaintiff search engine optimization firm sued defendant marketing firm for breach of contract, prompting defendant to countersue plaintiff (as a cross-defendant) for breach of contract and for a violation of Penal Code section 502 (a computer hacking claim
However, “Prevailing” Landlord Did Not Garner 998 Postoffer Expert Fees or Get More Fees, In Case Implicitly Founded “Over Litigated” By Lower Court—With Landlord Trying To Get $365,000-$387,000 In Fees. If you have followed us over the years (we thank you for those that have, hoping we have provided some insights, or welcome
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
City Obtained Permanent Injunction Against U-Haul Rental Operations at Particular Site, So It Won! U-Haul Co. of California v. City of Berkeley, Case No. A136973 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 7, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where the City of Berkeley decided to revoke U-Haul’s permit to operate a rental facility,
$308,383.72 Fee Recovery Affirmed On Appeal. In Ito v. Ito, Case No. A136513 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2014) (unpublished), one party, in an LLC dissolution case, received $461,958 plus title to 3 properties, while second party received $20,092 plus title to one property in litigation with fee-shifting clauses in LLC operating
