Trial Court Made Some Reasonable Reductions From $287,612 Request. In Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn., Case No. F069366 (5th Dist. Sept. 28, 2015) (unpublished), the trial court and Fifth District got to deal with the prevailing party’s fee request after winning an important parol evidence issue before the California […]
However, Not All Is Lost … Plaintiffs Only Get About 23% Of Requested Fee Amount, Inclusive Of 1.25 Multiplier. We have to say that all readers interested in fee issues need to read Britto v. Zep, Inc., Case No. A141870 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 25, 2015) (unpublished)—it gives a great roadmap on
Lots of Procedural, Allocation, and Reasonableness Challenges Rejected. In Save Westwood Village v. Luskin, Case No. B257354 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 18, 2015 posting) (unpublished), defendants brought a SLAPP motion, triggering plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss them from the case. However, the trial court determined the merits of the SLAPP motion, granted it,
Attorney Declaration Suffices For Fee Substantiation At State Court Level, Surmounting Hearsay Objection Based On Business Records Exception. In City of Indian Wells v. Lawellin, Case No. E060000 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 11, 2015) (unpublished), City of Indian Wells prevailed in a dispute over a local ordinance limiting height of hedges to
However, District Judge’s Award Of Only 15% of Requested Fees Vacated/Remanded For Another Adjudication On the Issue. In an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit in Ryan v. Editions Limited West, Inc., Nos. 12-17810/13-15061 (9th Cir. May 19, 2015) (published), decided that the Copyright Act of 1976 does not expressly or implicitly
Dueling Fee Motions Really Come Close To Negating Each Other. Iota Five, LLC v. Dobron, Case No. G050738 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 11, 2015) (unpublished) was a case where there were fee clauses in guaranties, with the two defendants—represented by the same counsel—gaining a complete victory on a sham guaranty defense as
Deals With Multiple Issues After Lower Court Awarded Only $19,176 Out Of Requested $231,000 In Fees. In our March 19, 2015 post, we discussed the unpublished decision of Save Our Uniquely Rural v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. E059521 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 18, 2015). We now can update: the decision
Limited Success, Excessive Hourly Rates, and Excessive Work Led To Reductions, Although Court Disagrees With One Aspect Of Gorman Decision. In Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. E059524 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished), a CEQA plaintiff, a non-profit opposing the development of an
Lack of Detailed Reasoning Did Not Translate Into Abuse of Discretion, With Lower Court Having Plenty of Ammunition To Lower Requested Fees. We know that the law in many fee-shifting areas says that awarded fees do not have to be proportional to the ultimate damages awarded, especially in civil rights or consumer areas.
However, Many of the Nonstatutory Costs Were Taxed. Although we do not often post about trial court decisions involving fees and costs, Caleb Marker of Ridout Lyon + Ottoson, LLP in Long Beach sent us copies of the fees and costs rulings in Weiss v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC141354 (L.A.
