HOA, on Remand, Will Get to Renew Request for $252,767 in Defense Fees. Here is an interesting one where an appellate court reversed the denial of a fee award as an abuse of discretion. The reason: HOA clearly prevailed when plaintiff dismissed 8 of 10 claims (some of them based on a fee-shifting […]
$147,121.25 Fee Award and $5,722.63 Costs Award Affirmed. In Hawthorne Machinery Co. v. Theo H. Davies & Co., Ltd., Case No. D057331 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a declaratory relief judgment in favor of defendants, a determination affirmed in a prior appeal with the conclusion that plaintiff prevailed
Opponent’s Fee Award of $40,588 Affirmed On Appeal. Here is a pragmatic opinion that shows the “prevailing party” determination under Civil Code section 1717 is meant also to be pragmatic as far as the adjudicatory process is concerned. The decision is Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. S&J Shoes, Inc., Case Nos. B224310/B226866 (2d Dist.,
$83,153 Fee Award Sustained Against Losing Tenant. Landlord sued tenant for unpaid rent under a prior settlement agreement under which the lease was terminated, tenant would vacate the premises in “turn key” condition, and assign certain FF&E (furniture, fixtures, and equipment) as well as its liquor license. The agreement also specified that landlord
Section 1717 Still Allowed Recovery to the Prevailing Party. The Fifth District, in Greg Opinski Construction, Inc. v. City of Oakdale, Case Nos. F060219/F060727 (5th Dist. Oct. 6, 2011) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion not published), affirmed a lower court decision finding that the city was entitled to recover from its general
Fourth District, Div. 2, Underscores That Compliance With Basic Appellate Procedure Is Necessary to Obtain Review of SLAPP Fees Issue. The next case, Dean Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, et al., Case No. E051217 (4th Dist. Div. 2, 8/18/11) (certified for publication), involves a complaint alleging causes of action deriving from purported racial
Last Hurrah Is That No Side Was a Prevailing Party for Fee Recovery. In what the appellate court itself described as an “epic contract dispute” over San Francisco property ownership between two sides litigated since 1999, the conclusion is a poignant one and one for which this blog was first inspired. No one
Prevailing Party Entitled to Routine Costs in Labor Code section 1194 Overtime Compensation Case. Employer in Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. E050631 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 11, 2011) (certified for publication) defensed employee in an overtime compensation/meal and rest break/failure to maintain records case. However, the trial court denied
However, Lower Court Correctly Determined Plaintiff Was Not Prevailing Party. Labor Code section 218.5 is a prevailing party fee-shifting provision for claims involving unpaid wages. That section was central to the next case, specifically with the question funneling down to who prevailed. In Lutz v. Sortwell, Case No. D055792 (4th Dist., Div.
Neither Private Attorney General Statute Nor Government Code § 800 Warranted Fees. Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. L.A. County Office of Education, Case Nos. B212966/B214470 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 12, 2011) (certified for publication) reversed a charter school’s revocation decision win below against L.A. County. As a result, the lower court’s denial
