Cases: Prevailing Party – Page 48

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.

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Fifth District Unpublished Decision Finds that Supreme Court Authority Allows Arbitrator to be the Arbiter of “Prevailing Party” Status for Fee Recovery Purposes.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 May 20, 2008) (unpublished), the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed an arbitrator’s power