Arbitration Award Winner Did Prevail In Subsequent Action, Despite Uncertainty As to Whether Fees Were Damages or Post-trial Costs. Whyaduck Productions, Inc. v. Block, Case No. B245051 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 9, 2014) (unpublished) is a case which somewhat flummoxed the appellate court given a sparse record and the position of the […]
Associates Were Working For Sole Proprietorship, Not Purely Personal Interests of Attorney; Carpenter Case Found On Point. Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Co. Ltd., Case No. B242288 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 26, 2014) (published) is another addition to the jurisprudence on the Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995) prohibition—if you as an
Result Was “Mixed” For Plaintiffs, While Plaintiffs Did Not Eclipse Defense 998 Offer. The result in Smith v. Esmailzadeh, Case No. B239828 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 19, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates well our Mission Statement that "[a]ll too often attorney fees become the tail that wags the dog in litigation." Deane Gardenhome Assn.
Santisas Drove the Result in this One. In Berry v. Berry, Case No. D062914 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 18, 2014) (unpublished), one co-trustee/aligned other parties were not happy when a probate court denied their request for attorney’s fees under a settlement agreement fees clause after another co-trustee (a brother, of course) voluntarily
Plaintiff Did Achieve What He Wanted, So Reversal of Fortunes—He Prevailed! The appellate court in Zock v. Esparza, Case No. D062784 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished) reversed as a matter of law a lower court’s grant of fees against a plaintiff who actually achieved his main litigation results. Basically, plaintiff
“Losing Party” Not Entitled to Fee Under Most Contractual Fee Clauses, Muses Appellate Court. The fee claimant in Vail Lake Rancho California, LLC v. Abreu, Case No. D061892 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 7, 2014) (unpublished) somewhat flummoxed the appellate court on review in challenging a denial of fee recovery under two contractual
Arose Is Arose Is Arose Is Arose Gertrude Stein. Carl Van Vechten, photographer. 1935. Library of Congress. “Arose From” Language Encompassed Other Claims; Losing Plaintiff Did Not Prevail Given Specific Prevailing Party Definition Under Statute. In the fee area, one needs to pay particular attention to the wording of a specific fee-shifting statute. The
This One Involved a Copyright Fight Over a Hookah Water Container. Costumed hookah smokers. Matthew B. Brady, photographer. Between 1850-60. Library of Congress. Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., Case No. 12-56331 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014) (published)—great name for a case, isn’t it—was copyright litigation over plaintiff’s claim that it had
Fee/Costs Award of $96,518 Affirmed on Appeal in Favor of Prevailing LLC Co-Manager. Prevailing party status, we would observe, does focus on pragmatics, especially under Civil Code section 1717 (which allows recovery of fees under certain circumstances where there is a fees clause). The next case illustrates that in the context of a
However, Attorney’s Fees Award Was Premature Until Judgment or Settlement Obtained Under Inverse Condemnation Fee-Shifting Provision. In an earlier appeal, Plaintiffs had obtained a reversal of a defense summary judgment in an inverse condemnation case, with the appellate court directing that the lower court consider a request for fees under Code of Civil
