Fourth District, Division 3 Reverses Paring of Fees from $62,400 to $20,000. Just to show you that a litigant’s failure to cooperate and the resultant expenses to a plaintiff will often come back to haunt that noncooperative litigant, we discuss Liu v. Wolfe, Case No. G043254 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 18, 2011) (unpublished) […]
Incisive Legal Intelligence has two fairly recent surveys that may be of interest to those of you who follow our blog with respect to national attorney hourly rates and in-house counsel costs. Here you go. 2009 Billings Rates and Practice Survey for Small and Mid-Sized Firms. In its 2009 study on billing rates
Mutuality Principles and Invalidity of 998 Offer Buttressed Correctness of Trial Court’s Fee Awards. Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v University of Southern California, Case Nos. B202789/B205034 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 9, 2011) (unpublished) was a hard fought case where plaintiff sued USC for breach of contract. Although lost profits evidence was found to have
Second District, Division 2 Sustains Substantial Award. In Chapman v. Sullivan Motor Cars, LLC, Case Nos. B222542/B224885 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff had a demurrer sustained without leave to his first amended complaint, with the lower court also adopting a referee’s decision to award attorney’s fees against plaintiff to the
Lower Court’s Double Multiplier For Defense Litigation Tactics Sustained on Appeal. Martin v. Taylor, Case No. H034649 (6th Dist. Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished) goes to show you that there is no proportionality principle for awarding attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. In fact, courts will often apply a multiplier if an opponent’s
Abuse of Discretion Standard Did Not Prevent Reversal When Record Showed Errors, According to Sixth District. In an interesting contrast to the way the abuse of discretion standard was deferentially applied in our contemporaneous post in Murrell v. Rolling Hills Community Association, the Sixth District found that the trial court abused its discretion in
No Proportionality Required Under Section 1717; Defense Expenditure Of More Proved Reasonableness. In Big Ring Holdings, LLC v. Van Ness Mgt., LLC, Case No. A126692 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 26, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff tenant was awarded $271,682 in damages for a leaking ceiling in a dispute over a yet-to-be-opened laundromat where there was
Sixth District Rejected 1717 Mutuality Challenge, But Did Remand For Determination of Reasonable Fee After Proof Failure. Here is a very interesting one at the top of a new year in the retainer agreement/Civil Code section 1717/reasonableness of fees areas. Palmer v. Taylor, Case No. H033644 (6th Dist. Jan. 4, 2011) (unpublished) was
$509,231 Scaled Back By Trial Court, But Sustained On Appeal. Here is an interesting substantial fee award. Half of what plaintiff requested, but way above the $95,000 Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer eventually accepted in the case on the eve of trial. Goes to show that fees do not have to be
Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions. 10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post. Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil
