Quarter Reduction Reasonable and Fees Not Extraordinary Based on Full Payoff. Here is one that we chalk up to “what are we all doing here” … subject to the caveat of maybe there is something we don’t know about. In Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. . Cadlerock Jt. Venture, L.P., Case No. […]
Law Firm’s Appeal Lacked Merit on Procedural and Merit Grounds–”Get Outta Here”. You know, this case does not really fit well within our categories, and co-contributor Marc is a stickler for trying to put our posts into categories. However, a very entertaining decision has come down from our local Santa Ana appellate court,
Routine Is in the Eye of the Beholder–The Third Reduction Was Not Viewed Kindly By Ninth Circuit; “Judicial Intuit Gestalt” Reigned Supreme. Costa v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Case No. 11-35245 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2012) (published) (per curiam) reinforces a theme we see at both the federal and state court levels
Lower Court Did Not Abuse Discretion, Awarding Only About Half Of Requested $481,250.15. In a case with some intrigue in it, including allegations that the non-prevailing party threatened key third-party witnesses (former workers) so as to lead to sanctions, the prevailing party in Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. Pacifica Systems Integration Group, Case
Both Sides Appealed, Both Sides Did Not Gain Anything Upon Review. In County of San Bernardino v. San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Assn., Case Mp/ E051576 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 26, 2012) (unpublished), County lost a SLAPP motion and was assessed $49,500 through an adverse mandatory fee award (even though the defense
Lower Court Did Not Properly Consider Plaintiff’s Degree of Success in Fixing Fees. Under the Truth in Lending Act, attorney’s fees must be awarded in any successful action to enforce its requirements. (15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3); Purtle v. Eldridge Auto Sales, 91 F.3d 797, 802 (6th Cir. 1996).) In the next case, our
Marriage of Howard, Case No. H036510 (6th Dist. June 6, 2012) (Unpublished). In this one, ex-husband waived any challenge to a $16,162 fee award because he failed to appear at an OSC and oppose the request. This was found to be a forfeiture based on his failure to object to the an error
$300/Hour Is Reasonable Rate for Sonoma Practitioners. Healdsburg Citizens For Sustainable Solutions v. City of Healdsburg, Case No. A130374 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 4, 2012) (certified for partial publication; 1021.5 Trope fee discussion published and rest unpublished) involved the City’s appeal of $382,189.73 in fees awarded to CEQA winners, including an attorney
Case Is One Involving Fee Recovery By Public Agency. Okay, so a public agency did prevail and recover fees in a dispute in Wilshire Ventures Corp. v. City of San Fernando Redevelopment Agency, Case Nos. B230916/B232924 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 9, 2012) (unpublished). Public agency was entitled to fees under a written
Plaintiff’s Fee Recovery of $291,155 Affirmed, Although 1.5 Requested Multiplier Denied. Here is one that again shows how small damages can justify fee awards of an exponential nature, in this case over eight times the successful compensatory recovery. Sciborski v. Pacific Bell Directory, Case No. D056440 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 8,
