Second District So Holds in Topanga and Fourth District, Division One Concurs in Its Unpublished Kilgore Decision. In our Leading Case No. 6, Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 615-617 (1998), the California Supreme Court determined that a pretrial voluntarily dismissal of a contract claim between two signatories prevents the dismissed […]
Fourth District, Division One Harmonizes the Interplay Between Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and Civil Code section 1717(b)(2). Recently, there has been a rash of decisions dealing with offers to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The next case resolves what happens when section 998 collides with Civil
Castro Holds That A Practical Prevailing Party Test Governs An Award of Fees When A Lis Pendens Is Withdrawn. Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38 provides that the prevailing party on a motion to expunge a lis pendens is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in bringing or
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
