Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti, Case No. E053187 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 9, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is a construction lender liability case with fairly draconian facts […]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      In Shalant v. Mackston, Case No. B250208 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 8, 2014) (unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion—the merits of which were never appealed—and plaintiff suffered a combined adverse fee award of $138,972 under the mandatory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 A135660/A138856 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished) is an interesting case primarily involving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

Deadlines/Prevailing Party/Reasonableness Of Fees: Fee Award To Defendants Affirmed Based On Waiver And Failure To Provide Reporter’s Transcript Of Fee Hearing

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Where Reasonableness of Fees Involved, RT Is a Likely Necessity; Cost Memo Was Timely Filed.      Pladott v. Blankstein, Case No. B250097 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 4, 2014) (unpublished) involved a plaintiff “hit” with attorney’s fees and costs by defense, with plaintiff arguing that the existence of a cross-complaint meant the postjudgment orders

Interpretation/Indemnification/Reasonableness Of Fees: CAR Listing Agreement Indemnification Clause Broad Enough To Permit Fee Recovery To Brokers Defensing Seller X-Complaint Based On Inaccurate/Undisclosed Information

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  $348,372 Is Broker Fee Recovery; However, CAR Clause May Need To Be Amended To Allow Routine Costs Recovery.      Brokerage company successfully defended against a cross-complaint brought by sellers, sellers who were also successfully sued by buyers of an expensive Pacific Palisades residence in the same case. Broker defended against the cross-complaint by arguing

Indemnity/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: Reciprocity Principles And Payment Of Fees Under Corporate Indemnity Did Not Impact Civil Code Section 1717 Fee Recovery By Prevailing Defendants Under Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  $380,000 In Aggregate Fees To Three Defendants Was The Final Tally.      In Baharian-Mehr v. SGRL Investments, Inc., Case No. G048796 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 7, 2014) (unpublished), defendants in a general partnership dispute–where the original partnership agreement had a contractual fees clause favorable to prevailing parties—won a defense judgment in a multi-count

Scroll to Top