Fifth District Finds Nothing Wrong in Substantial Fee Award. Hopper Properties v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., Case No. F060235 (5th Dist. July 7, 2011) (unpublished) involved interesting facts and a substantial fee award affirmed on appeal. Owner/landlord Hopper and tenant Payless settled with a six-year-old boy who was bitten by a bat inside […]
Choice of Law–California Law Applies Across the Board If It Is the Governing Choice of Law on Fee Issues. In our prior posts of June 11, 2008 and January 21, 2010, we discussed decisions indicating that Civil Code section 1717’s reciprocity principle is a fundamental California interest trumping unilateral fee clauses governed by
$23,600 Fee Award Out of Requested $223,615.50 Reversed in Civil Rights Case. In Williams v. Hei Long Beach, LLC, Case No. B224211 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 31, 2011) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a fee award of $23,600 out of attorneys’ requested $223,615.50 in an Unruh Civil Rights hotel accommodation case resulting
Justice Bedsworth Gives Us Two Fee Case “Gems.” Justice Bedsworth, who sits on the Fourth District, Division 3 (the venue where co-contributors Marc and Mike are based practice-wise), has written two interesting decisions on lodestar/reasonableness of fees. Both involved trial court decisions dramatically cutting fee requests. On appeal, one got reversed and the other
Case Highlights How Fee Recoveries Can Be Substantial in Fairly Standard Real Estate Cases. Mehrabian v. Meruelo Maddux Properties-Ponte Vista, LLC, Case No. B219623 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 19, 2011) (unpublished) is not so remarkable for its conclusion, but highlights the high costs of fairly standard real estate litigation and demonstrates the
Order Granting the People $707,882.50 in Attorney Fees and Costs of $32,673 Goes Up in Smoke, But Not to Worry, Parties Will Get to Light Up Again in Trial Court In this appeal, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged an order awarding attorney fees to the People for enforcing a Consent Decree banning participating tobacco
Trial Court’s Significant Reductions in Requested Fees Obviated Need to Apportion With Mathematical Precision. The next case illustrates a result we see often in appellate decisions when apportionment of fees is necessary as between compensable and noncompensable claims: a lower court’s reduction of fee requests obviates the need to perform a CPA-like audit of
$185,674.22 Fee Award and $12,829 Costs Award Sustained on Appeal. Chino Municipal Code section 12.02.030 provides that any applicant (usually a telecommunications company obtaining an encroachment permit) failing to restore city or private property to the like or better condition after any encroachment damages “shall be liable for all costs to restore same
Also Contains Good Guidelines in All Fee Proceedings. We would like to thank reader James Wheaton, Esq., president of Environmental Law Foundation, for forwarding an August 23, 1985 memorandum circulated to all attorneys in the Office of the California Attorney General when that position was occupied by John K. Van de Kamp.
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)
