Court of Appeal Also Chastised Respondent For Relying on Non-California Authorities in Attempting to Sustain Result. Sadr & Barrera, APLC v. Cyriacks, Case No. D058417 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where an appellate court reversed a Civil Code section 1717 attorney’s fees award to a default judgment […]
Trial Court’s Denial of Fees Reversed Because Bank Was Prevailing Party. Meeker v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. B225289 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2012) (unpublished) illustrates that Civil Code section 1717’s mandate of awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party is indeed obligatory in nature, and that fee award denials–even
Opinion Will Give Added Importance to Section 998 Costs(Fee)-Shifting. Well, well, we can report that there has been an interesting appellate “explosion” of opinions in the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 area. The First District, Division 5, has entered into the fray. In SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. v. Five Bridges
No One Got A Clear Win, So Go Your Own Way, Says Appellate Court in Much More Eloquent Fashion. Under Civil Code section 1717, ya gotta prevail–and that is a pragmatic determination, which means ya gotta be a clear winner (not just a contender). In the next case, both plaintiff and cross-complainant did
Case Demonstrates Trial Court Decisions Will Be Sustained on Any Right Ground Existing in the Record. In Nesbitt v. Emmanuel, Case No. B224521 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 7, 2012) (unpublished), the trial court awarded both compensatory and punitive damages under the financial elder abuse statutes to a trust. It also awarded attorney’s
Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Cemented Costs Entitlement. Although coming about in convoluted fashion, defendant was awarded certain costs in an adjacent neighbor tree dispute where plaintiffs won a temporary restraining order but defendant voluntarily made some construction changes so that a preliminary injunction was ultimately denied. Plaintiffs then dismissed their action without prejudice. The trial
Decision Is Also a Cautionary Tale on Stipulations to Extend the Five Years To Another Date Certain. The Third District in City of Stockton v. Central San Joaquin Water Conservation Dist., Case No. C063824 (3d Dist. Jan. 11, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where litigants stipulated to an extension of the five-year-to-trial limit
Substantial Awards Were Reversed. As Justice O’Leary of our local Santa Ana court reminds us, reversal of a successful cross-complaint demurrer ruling (including a ruling on contractual claims) also means that the subsequent prevailing party determination goes POOF! also. The reason is that the contracts are still being litigated, and the prevailing party
Wrapping It Up: M & M’s Top 25 Attorney’s Fees Decisions For 2011 Part 1 of 2 It is that time of year, at year end, for us to list our top published attorney’s fees decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and California Courts of Appeal. Although we normally
Landlord Lost $23,029.88 Fee Recovery When Fee Award Deleted From Judgment by Appellate Court. Although originally unpublished, the appellate court in Kumar v. Yu, Case No. B226335 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 17, 2011) certified its opinion for publication on December 16, 2011. Basically, landlord lost a contractual lease dispute with a
