Board Member Vindicated No Interest and Prior Board Sanctions Showed No Real Change to the Status Quo. Although this case got quite a bit of publicity in the San Diego County area, it went away with a relative whimper. In Tri-City Healthcare District v. Sterling, Case Nos. D059810 et al. (4th Dist., […]
$80,000 Fee Award/$2,000 Costs Award Go POOF! Artist: Jean-Léon Gérôme. 1824 – 1904. Optometrist had gotten a nice win–a superior court overturned an ALJ’s determination that the optometrist had violated the standard of care in relation to a patient’s cataracts diagnosis. The lower court then awarded optometrist about $80,000 in fees
Remand to Fix Fees for Winning Plaintiff. Plaintiff in Purifoy v. Howell, Case No. A135284 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 26, 2013) (unpublished) must initially have been sorely disappointed when she was denied an award of attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute after obtaining an earlier published appellate court decision which
CCP § 1021.5 Benefit And Economic Interest Factors Satisfied–CEQA Winner Awarded $56,459.16 Out of Requested $668,386 in Fees. For you readers following private attorney general fee awards under CCP § 1021.5, North Sonoma County Healthcare Dist. v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A134862 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 14, 2013) (unpublished) is an
State Supreme Court Clarifies UCL Reach On Insurance Bad Faith Actions, Including A Footnote On Fee Recovery. In Zhang v. Superior Court, Case No. S178542 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 1, 2013), our state supreme court held that common law bad faith insurances cases can be pled and sustained as unfair competition law claims,
Dispensary Was Not Successful Under CCP § 1021.5, Ultimately. In Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim, Case No. G046875 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 29, 2013) (unpublished), a former medical marijuana dispensary lost an attempt to recoup attorney’s fees under the private atttorney general statute. Although dispensary won at the pleading stage,
Plaintiff Eventually Lost at Trial Based On Expert Proof of No Harm on Nuisance Claim. Plaintiff, in Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide, Case No. B234296 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 29, 2013) (unpublished) (Birke II), had won an earlier appeal resulting in a published decision (Birke I) by which a without leave demurrer on
Sanctions–Spahl v. Santiago, Case No. B236369 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2013) (Unpublished). In this one, plaintiffs sanctioned under CCP § 128.7 argued that defendants' inclusion of a request for dismissal in its motion for sanction rendered the sanctions request invalid. Not so, because simply doing this did not contravene underlying any statutory purpose
Owner’s Economic Benefits Outstripped Cost of Litigation Based on Conflicting Trial Court Evidence Presented in Fee Motion. County of Santa Cruz was ordered to issue four unconditional certificates of compliance for 4 parcels owned by Heather Point. However, Heather Point was denied recovery of attorney’s fees of around $475,000 under CCP § 1021.5,
Unreasonable Post-Litigation Failure to Settle and Absence of Court-Ordered Change Negated Fee Entitlement Bases. After petitioner lost an administrative hearing on the issue in Wineberg v. City & County of San Francisco, Case Nos. A134143/A134941 (Feb. 11, 2013) (unpublished), he commenced a lawsuit contesting a San Francisco ordinance assessing penalties for false burglar/fire
