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 Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished) goes to show you that there is no proportionality principle for awarding attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717.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 In Big Ring Holdings, LLC v. Van Ness Mgt., LLC, Case No. A126692 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 26, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff tenant was awarded $271,682 in damages for a leaking ceiling in a dispute over a yet-to-be-opened laundromat where there was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 Jan. 4, 2011) (unpublished) was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
Plaintiff’s Request for Over $58,500 In Fees Is Firmly Rejected. Labor Code section 218.5 holds that a prevailing party in an action for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health/welfare/pension fund contributions must be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. It was that pesky word “reasonable” that resulted in a much diminished fee award than
Fourth District, Division One Reinforces that Consumer Statutes Are Not a Blank Attorney’s Fees Check. This next one is a lemon law case, arising under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act with a mandatory fee-shifting provision. However, that fee-shifting statute only allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party (Civ. Code, § 1794(d);
First District, Division Two Finds Fee Motion Timely and Fee Award Reasonable in Amount. In Cun v. Café Tiramisu, Case No. A124985 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 7, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiff ex-employee lost a superior court FLSA action following a de novo Labor Commissioner hearing in which she claimed to have not been paid
Second District, Division 8, in Opinions by Justice Flier, Affirms Two Fee Awards, One For Appellate Work In a Civil Case and One in an Arbitration Context. #1: Moore v. Pro Value Properties, Inc., Case No. B216061 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 6, 2010) (unpublished) In pro per plaintiffs/appellants challenged a $120,360.75 fee award
