Cases: Prevailing Party – Page 39

Employment: Employer Denied An Award Of Routine Costs After Winning An Overtime Compensation Case Gets Vindication On Appeal

August 13, 2011

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 […]

Employment/Prevailing Party: Breach Of Partnership Agreement Claim Did Trigger Unpaid Wage Fee Shifting Statute

July 30, 2011

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.

Prevailing Party: Charter School, Not Successful In Revocation Proceeding On Appeal, Could Not Recover Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party

July 12, 2011

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

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Trope Restriction Applies To Non-Section 1717 Contexts

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

June 25, 2011

Bad News for Attorneys . . . Co-Counsel Cannot Try to Circumvent Limitation By Representing Each Other In De Novo Collection Matter Following Fee Arbitration. Here is a somewhat of a wild one, where two attorneys co-counseling for the same clients were denied fee recovery after a successful jury verdict, following on the

Section 1717/Prevailing Party: Only Winning Fee Recovery Issue On Appeal Does Not Make One A Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

June 14, 2011

Plaintiff Won Below, But Denied Fees Based on Trope, With Affirmance on Fee Recovery Not Making Defendant the Prevailing Party. The next case is an elegant, short unpublished decision that demonstrates Civil Code section 1717 “prevailing party” status must be based upon consideration of the whole lawsuit, not just an appellate win on

Costs/Prevailing Party: Where Party Obtains Nonmonetary Relief In Mixed Claims Litigation, Costs Prevailing Party Determination Is A Discretionary Call

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

June 12, 2011

Attorney Winning Contractual Costs Assessment Dispute Collected Substantial Costs. Here is one demonstrating how prevailing party costs determinations are frequently discretionary in nature in multi-count litigation involving both monetary and nonmonetary claims. In Petrik v. Mahaffey, Case No. G042114 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was represented by a

Arbitration/Prevailing Party: Client’s Efforts In Compelling Contractual Arbitration Under Arbitration-Bearing Fee Clause Gives Rise To Fee Recovery

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

May 6, 2011

Appellate Court So Holds in Prior Case After a Rehearing. In a prior post on October 13, 2010, we reviewed the case of Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Kors, Case No. A125732 (1st Dist., Div. 2), which was published but then erased from the books after the appellate court granted a rehearing on

Prevailing Party: Party Not Prevailing On Contractual Claims Not Entitled To Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party

April 21, 2011

$57,834 Fee Request Properly Denied. Just to show you how “prevailing party” determinations for attorney’s fees and costs purposes diverge, stay with us and follow the next case. In Chu v. Madison, Case No. A127892 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 21, 2011) (unpublished), the trial court denied a fee request by plaintiffs for

Prevailing Party/Special Fee Shifting Statute/Costs: Taxpayer Reaps $186,342.54 As Fee Recovery When Trial Court Remands Case Back For Assessment Board Base Tax Year Recalculation

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Taxation

April 21, 2011

Fees Justified Under Government Code Section 800 and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1611.6; Costs Of $19,788.92 Justified Under CCP § 1032. Here are two companion cases from the Fifth District, Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. County of Madera, Case Nos. F059256 and F059621 (Apr. 20, 2011) (unpublished), discussing fee-shifting statutes we do

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Prevailing On Common Count And Defendants Prevailing On Contract Count Justified “No Prevailing Party” Determination

Cases: Prevailing Party

April 19, 2011

Second District, Division 6 So Holds — Using Pragmatic Standard for Fee Recovery. Here is one which teaches that the “prevailing party” determination is a fluid, pragmatically-based determination, as we have explored in many past posts. Rocketstar Robotics, Inc. v. California Motors, LLC, Case No. B226326 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 19, 2011)