After the Event or Legal Expense Insurance Is the Middle Ground Discussed. Kevin Martin, founder and CEO of Sonoma Risk Insurance Agency, has written an interesting article, aptly entitled “Leveling the Playing Field in Contract Disputes,” in the August 2010 edition of The Orange County Lawyer. In some statistics directly relevant to […]
Second District, Division 1 Affirms CCP § 1032 Fee Determination, But Reverses and Remands For Civil Code § 1717 Recovery Calculation. As we have discussed under our category “Prevailing Party,” the determination of prevailing party focuses on the results reached on each distinctive claim by each distinct litigant, with different statutes governing the distinct
Fourth District, Division 3 Emphatically Makes the Point. Roden v. Amerisourcebergen Corp., Case No. G041990 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2010) (certified for publication) involved a plaintiff who was disappointed in being denied an award of attorney’s fees under a supplemental executive retirement plan (with ERISA implications) after prevailing on some aspects of
If one side does not win a clear victory in a case (such as nominal damages), the lower court can certainly award fees to the other side where it beat major exposure on claims involving a fee-shifting clause. That is exactly what happened in the next case we explore. In Core Wealth Mgt.,
Second District, Division 7 Finds Reversal of Prejudgment Interest Issue Requires Reexamination of Prevailing Party Determination and the Escrow Instructions Fee Clauses Were Sufficiently Broad for Fee Entitlement Purposes In Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Malibu Escrow Corp., Case No. B203415 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 1, 2010) (unpublished), an apartment building purchaser recovered
Trial Court Had Jurisdiction to Award Fees While Merits Appeal Pending and Borrower Was the Prevailing Party. Borrower on a loan, even after an initial appeal, reduced a loan balance to only $3,602.72 after an offset for usurious interest. The lower court refused to award costs to lender and also awarded $43,960 to borrower
Plaintiff Cannot Recover Fees From Nonsettling Litigants Where Offsets From Settling Litigants Result in a Zero Judgment. The California Supreme Court, in a much anticipated decision, has decided an important “prevailing party” issue in Goodman v. Lozano, Case S162655 (Cal. Supreme Ct. Feb. 4, 2010) (published). Our state supreme court
Sixth District Found Opposing Party Forfeited Challenge to Billing Record Objections When It Failed to Attack Omissions Through Discovery Motion. In the next case, the Sixth District—in UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, Case No. H033862 (6th Dist. Jan. 22, 2010) (unpublished)—affirmed a $402,596.40 fee award under a contractual provision when sustaining a trial
Sixth District Finds Challenge to Superseded Ruling is Moot. The next case is an illustration of the principle that prevailing party status usually cannot be determined “until the dust has finally settled.” In Campagna v. Gatley Properties, Case No. H034112 (6th Dist. Jan. 21, 2010) (unpublished), after two prior appeals, the appellate court
Third District’s Affirmance of Prompt Payment Statute Result Ices Correctness of Fee Award. In one of our past posts (see January 16, 2009 discussion of the unpublished decision of Li v. Wu), we briefly discussed one of the construction prompt payment statutes. The Legislature has enacted several “prompt payment” statutes designed to make sure
