Cases: Prevailing Party – Page 47

COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES $440,000 ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD WHERE LOWER COURT IMPROPERLY TRUNCATED REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE LITIGATION FOR PURPOSES OF ASCERTAINING THE “PREVAILING PARTY”

June 14, 2008

First District Overturns Substantial Fee Award Based on Misreading of Prior Appeal Decisions in the Same Case. We have to hand it to Justice Simons of the First District, Division Five. Faced with a complicated set of facts and a substantial fee winner, he—as author on behalf of a 3-0 panel—correctly […]

REDUX ON MEDIATION, PREVAILING PARTY, AND FEE SUBSTANTIATION PRINCIPLES IN RECENT UNPUBLISHED DECISION

June 13, 2008

Second District Affirms Fee Award and Review Principles We Have Previously Surveyed. Once in a while, we all need refresher courses. That all holds true in the fee award area. The next case is just that—reviewing principles we have earlier discussed on mediation clauses, prevailing party status, and trial court review of

LABOR CODE VIOLATIONS MAY MEAN FEE AWARD IS MANDATORY—BUT AMOUNT OF FEES ARE DISCRETIONARY AND MAY RESULT IN A DISAPPOINTINGLY SMALL AWARD

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

June 9, 2008

Second District Finds that Plaintiff Individually Settling for $10,500—Even Though His Claim Was Only For $44.63—Entitled to Garner a $500 Fee Award. There are many sections of the California Labor Code that have mandatory fee award authority. As examples, Labor Code section 1194(a) provides that employees paid less than their legal overtime

SECOND DISTRICT FINDS THAT REYNOLDS METALS JUSTIFIED FEE AWARD TO PARTIES DEFEATING ALTER EGO CLAIM IN BIFURCATED TRIAL

Cases: Prevailing Party

June 5, 2008

Liminal Determination of the Alter Ego Allegations, Before Any Liability Consideration, Deemed Inconsequential For Purposes of Applying Reynolds. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal.3d 124 (1979), posted in our Leading Cases, is a venerable decision holding that defendants prevailing on alter ego allegations. in a full trial of all issues,

ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARDS TO PREVAILING PLAINTIFFS UNDER THE CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT—CAN RECOVERY BE HAD FOR PREFILING SETTLEMENTS OR SETTLEMENTS AFTER LITIGATION HAS BEEN COMMENCED? We Provide Answers Below.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

June 3, 2008

Recent Article in California Lawyer Explores Potential Limitations on Fee Recovery for Suing Plaintiffs under CLRA. Greg Nylen, an opponent in a class action that Mike Hensley is prosecuting, has written a nifty article in the June 2008 California Lawyer, entitled “Handling Claims under the CLRA” (found at pages 43-46 of

APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS TRIAL JUDGE DISCRETION IN FINDING THERE WAS NO PREVAILING PARTY FOR PURPOSES OF AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES TO EITHER SIDE OF A RETAINER DISPUTE

Cases: Prevailing Party

May 31, 2008

Second District Finds “No Prevailing Party” Where Both Client and Attorneys Do Not Achieve What Either Wanted. “If neither party achieves a complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither

ARBITRATOR DOES HAVE POWER TO DETERMINE TO FIND THAT NO PARTY WAS THE PREVAILING PARTY FOR PURPOSES OF BEING AWARDED FEES.

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

May 22, 2008

Fifth District Unpublished Decision Finds that Supreme Court Authority Allows Arbitrator to be the Arbiter of “Prevailing Party” Status for Fee Recovery Purposes. In Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. Swinerton Builders, Inc., Case No. F053237 (5th Dist. May 20, 2008) (unpublished), the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed an arbitrator’s power