$2.4-3.8 Million Fee Request In Civil Rights Case Properly Denied In Entirety. On June 7, 2019, we posted on Guillory v. Hill, Case No. G054027 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 31, 2019) (unpublished), where a $2.4-3.8 million fee request under a section 1988 was denied in entirety based on minimal success and what the […]
Neighborhood Squabble Involving Dogs . . . . ARF! Kinda hard to believe that neighbors can get into such nasty squabbles, but we chalk it up to human nature. Unfortunately, dogs—which we believe to be great gifts to mankind—often times are at the center of these disputes. In this one, Thomas v. Olshansky,
Simplicity Of Issue And Minimal Time Expended On It Justified The Final Fee Award. In a commercial lease dispute where the sole owner of landlord was sued as an alter ego via cross-complaint, sole owner won and was awarded $12,250 in fees and $703.23 in costs, but less than he wanted. Owner appealed to
Creditor Properly Recovered Only $2,500 Out Of A Requested $15,730 In Fees Against Debtor. In Murphy v. Combat Sports Academy, LLC, Case No. A153937 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 24, 2019) (unpublished), a plaintiff creditor structured a settlement with defendant debtor by which a stipulated judgment would be entered for $150,000 from a “true”
No Apportionment Required Because Alter Ego Claims Were Involved On Both Causes Of Action; Assertion That Hourly Rates Should Be Lower Did Not Rebut Fee Claimant’s Attorney’s Declaration. In Alvarado v. Freedman, Case No. G055918 (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff sued defendants for loan repayment, based on a loan agreement
Plaintiffs Recovered $8,500; Sought Fees Of $171,000; Were Awarded Fees Of $37,250. Lack of success in a case can certainly impact fee recovery to prevailing parties, as Almaguer v. Newland Entities, Inc., Case No. C075662 (3d Dist. March 27, 2019) (unpublished), demonstrates. There, two plaintiffs partially prevailed on certain labor/wrongful termination claims, but
It Was Not Necessary For Court To Apportion Fees Between Contract-Based Causes Of Action, Claims Dismissed Before Trial, Defense of Defendant Corporation, and Defense of Corporation’s CEO Because Plaintiff’s Causes Of Action All Stemmed From A Common Factual Core, And All Claims Against CEO Were Also Alleged Against Entity. In Grant v. AssistMed, Inc.,
Hourly Rates Were Too High For Sacramento Venue, Laffey Matrix Could Be Used, And Hours Property Reduced For Inflated Request. In Limon v. Dept. of Finance, Case No. C082501 (3d Dist. Feb. 11, 2019) (unpublished), as it often times does, the likely final fight involved the award of appellate fees to prevailing plaintiffs in
Civil Code Section 1717 Has No “Obligation-To-Pay” Requirement. Defendants in Legendary Investors Group v. Niemann, Case No. B284736 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 16, 2019) (unpublished) prevailed in a long-running suit against plaintiff involving commercial loan and guaranty documents. Defendants, as prevailing parties, requested fees of $1,061,208.22, with the lower court awarding $1,047,313.72. Plaintiff
Compensatory Award Was $307,762, Even Though Jury Was Asked To Award $7 Million. Inflated fee requests, as we know from the oft-quoted decision in Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1325-1326 (2008), are a special situation which allows a trial judge to substantially reduce or deny altogether the request. Alnor was front
