Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees: Vast Portion Of $2.1 Million Fee Award Under Unruh Act/Interrelated Tort Claims Affirmed On Appeal Where Total Recovery Was $1.654 Million

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  One Reversal Involved A Non-Class Action Percentage Of Recovery Methodology Found Flawed By The Appellate Court, So Apportionment Re-Do On One Issue Was Ordered.      Paletz v. Adaya, Case No. B247184 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 29, 2014) (unpublished) involved bad facts, resulting in a substantial jury verdict and substantial fees, most of which […]

Interpleader/Reasonableness Of Fees: $81,053.44 In Fees To Neutral Stakeholder Affirmed In Interpleader Action

Cases: Interpleader, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Absence of Opposition From Other Side Steered the Affirmance.      In Southern Cal. Gas. Co. v. Flannery, Case No. B249616 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 16, 2014) (published), gas company brought an interpleader action to direct disposition of settlement proceeds in multiple fire cases, ultimately being granted an unopposed motion for discharge and then

Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: Title VII Sexual Harassment Plaintiff Winning $1 Nominal Compensatory Damages/$300,000 Punitive Damages Under Title VII Statutory Cap Appropriately Awarded Fees And Costs Of $350,902.75

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Plaintiff Did Succeed, With Efforts On Other Claims Interrelated.      In State of Arizona v. Asarco, No. 11-17484 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2014) (en banc) (published), a Title VII plaintiff primarily alleging sexual harassment claims brought an action against an employer having more than 500 employees. The jury awarded plaintiff $1 in nominal compensatory

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees: $362,000 In Fee Recovery To Contractor Stepping Into Developers Shoes And Guarantors For Winning Against Construction Lender Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Bank’s Failure to Contest Fee Entitlement Meant Only Amount of Fees At Issue—With Reasonableness And Apportionment Issues Left to Trial Court Discretion.      California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti, Case No. E053187 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 9, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is a construction lender liability case with fairly draconian facts

Reasonableness Of Fees/SLAPP: Winning SLAPP Defendants’ $138,972 Combined Fee Award Affirmed As Reasonable On Appeal

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

  Also, CCP § 177.5 $1,000 Sanctions Award Reviewable Only By Writ.      In Shalant v. Mackston, Case No. B250208 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 8, 2014) (unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion—the merits of which were never appealed—and plaintiff suffered a combined adverse fee award of $138,972 under the mandatory SLAPP fee-shifting statute. One

Prevailing Party/Section 998/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees/Celebrities: $125,000 Fee Award To Landlord Under Section 1717 Affirmed, Rejecting Defense Challenges To 998 Rejection Arguments

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  However, “Prevailing” Landlord Did Not Garner 998 Postoffer Expert Fees or Get More Fees, In Case Implicitly Founded “Over Litigated” By Lower Court—With Landlord Trying To Get $365,000-$387,000 In Fees.      If you have followed us over the years (we thank you for those that have, hoping we have provided some insights, or welcome

Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Did Not Err In Reducing Lodestar Request For Inexperience Of Attorney And Partial Success On Some Activities

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Although Different Judge than “Merits” Judge Heard Fee Motion, Appellate Court Questions Whether More Scrutiny Is Required, But Affirms Even Under A More Rigorous Standard.      Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco, Case Nos. A135660/A138856 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished) is an interesting case primarily involving

Reasonableness Of Fees/Settlement: Defendant Reneging Under Ocean Tree Obstruction Settlement Liable For $27,524.50 In Breaching Settlement Stipulation

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Settlement

  Defense Failed To Oppose Fee Motion, So Excessiveness Objection Waived.      In Corrigan v. Kent, Case No. B247707 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 12, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiffs sued defendant based on a large oak tree obstructing plaintiff’s view of the ocean based on a violation of Santa Barbara City view ordinance No. 5220. On

Lodestar/Private Attorney General/Reasonableness Of Fees: Non-Profit Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery Against Developer Under Split Fee Settlement Arrangement Between Non-Profit And City

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  However, Lodestar Had to Be Re-fixed on a Couple of Issues.      Plaintiff SONG, a non-profit, prevailed in an earlier appeal of a challenge to the environmental review of a project to amend Lancaster’s general plan to change the zoning designation so that a developer could construct a shopping center on a vacant lot

Scroll to Top