$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 In Chu v. Madison, Case No. A127892 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 21, 2011) (unpublished), the trial court denied a fee request by plaintiffs for […]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 F059256 and F059621 (Apr. 20, 2011) (unpublished), discussing fee-shifting statutes we do
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)
One Party Prevails, But Still Suffers Adverse Judgment of Over $2 Million When Opponent Also Prevailed. This next case is a sobering reminder that “prevailing party” determinations do not necessarily result in one winner in multi-claim litigation. Even though one party might prevail and obtain a substantial fee/costs award, the other party–if that
Blasted Legal Fees Unite Civil Rights Attorneys Across the Political Spectrum in Shotgun Marriage After Judge Drops the Hammer on Fee Request in 2nd Amendment Litigation. Mike Scarcella reports in The National Law Journal (April 4, 2011, online edition) that Alan Gura, the high-caliber lawyer behind the Supreme Court’s gun-rights precedent “may lose by
Order Granting the People $707,882.50 in Attorney Fees and Costs of $32,673 Goes Up in Smoke, But Not to Worry, Parties Will Get to Light Up Again in Trial Court In this appeal, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged an order awarding attorney fees to the People for enforcing a Consent Decree banning participating tobacco
L.A. County Gets Nada Monetary Relief After Credits, And Is Stung By Affirmance of 998 Offers by Insurers Costing It $5.9 Million. The next one is the apparent conclusion of what our local Santa Ana appellate court analogized as being “easily the 14 Years War of civil litigation in Orange County” between Los
Published Part of Decision Holds That Order Taxing Costs Allowable After An Appeal Awards Costs Is Itself an Appealable Order. Krikorian Premier Theatres, LLC v. Westminster Central, LLC, Case Nos. E047523/E049537 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 24, 2011) (certified for partial publication) is a wild decision in that a prior appellate reversal completely
Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal Without Effect; Offset for Prior Settlements Meant No Change in Result Due to Her Prior 998 Offer. A trifecta of issues was considered by the appellate court in Goldstein v. Williams, Case No. D057826 (Mar. 24, 2011) (unpublished). In this one, plaintiff sued for breach of contract and in
. . . However, Remand For Fee Recovery Evaluation on Dismissed Tort Claim. For you folks entertaining voluntarily dismissals of actions, must reading in this area–if you are bothered about attorney’s fees exposure–is our state supreme court’s decision in Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 602, 607-608 (1998) [one of our Leading Cases]. We
