Case Holds that Reversal Moots Appeal of Attorney’s Fees Denial Order. On July 17, 2009, the Fourth District, Division 1 certified for publication a previously unpublished decision, Costa Serena Owners Coalition v. Costa Serena Architectural Committee, Case No. D052903 (4th Dist., Div. 1 filed June 24, 2009; published July 17, 2009). This case held […]
Second District, Division 4 Affirms $20,000 Fees/Cost Award to Alter Ego Winner. In Legacy Construction and Development, Inc. v. De Francesca, Case No. B208851 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 13, 2009) (unpublished), a defendant, following presentation of plaintiff’s declaratory relief case, obtained a ruling that he was not the alter ego of a separate
Second District, Division 6 Also Interprets Mediation Requirement in CAR Form Contract. Buyers sometimes get confused over their obligations under CAR real estate form contracts, especially the ones involving an award of attorney’s fees (which clauses have been held to reach fraud/nondisclosure claims). One of the most frequent causes of confusion is the mediation
First District, Division 4 Follow Acosta-Otay Line of Cases. There has been quite a splash of jurisprudence lately on the question of when a prevailing party can be adjudged in mixed legal-arbitration proceedings. The next case is the latest addition to the case law on this subject. In Turner v. Schultz, Case Nos.
Second District, Division 3 Rebuffs Contrary Technical Argument. In Brownstein v. Smith, Case No. B205864 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 1, 2009), plaintiff lost a condominium dispute against other condo owners arising out of CC&Rs. Defendants were entitled to seek fees under Civil Code section 1354(a), a fee-shifting provision applying to parties seeking to
Sixth District Applies Reasoning of Santisas. The next case shows how appellate courts apply a pragmatic standard in gauging whether a party prevailed in order to recover attorney’s fees, even after a voluntarily dismissal of a fraud count where fees might be recoverable under an expansive Purchase Agreement clause. Almog v. Mueller,
Fourth District, Division 3 Remands for Fee Redetermination in “Acrid Dispute Between Neighbors.” Disputes between homeowner associations and members or neighbors in a common interest subdivision seem to result in overboilings of emotions and (ultimately) litigation resources. Many times, the final result—where both sides seek to recoup hefty attorney’s fees—results in a “wash,” with
Fourth District, Division 1 Also Finds Waiver Where Apportionment Argument Not Made in Trial Court. A short unpublished decision, K2 Construction, Inc. v. Anjani Investments, Inc., Case No. D053717 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 15, 2009), stresses a couple of important principles that may be encountered when appealing a fee award. (Plaintiff won a
Illinois Sitting Judge Shadur Raises Alchemy Analogy in Court of Appeal Decision. Federal court costs are routinely rewarded to the prevailing party—especially the party winning a summary judgment motion or trial against a plaintiff. Even though this happened in the context of a summary judgment proceeding, the plaintiffs in the next case tried to
Fourth District, Division 1 Rejects “You Won One, I Won One” Scoreboard Approach to Section 1717. This next case shows that appellate courts do indeed apply a pragmatic test when deciding whether a “prevailing party” determination rightfully gauged who obtained greater relief for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. (For
