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
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
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 The next case is an elegant, short unpublished decision that demonstrates Civil Code section 1717 “prevailing party” status must be based upon consideration of the whole lawsuit, not just an appellate win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
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 In Petrik v. Mahaffey, Case No. G042114 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was represented by a
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
$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
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
