Department of Corrections. We do not claim to be infallible, and thank a reader who recently drew our attention to our October 9, 2008 post on Lu v. Grewal. In our synopsis, we erroneously said “Plaintiff was unhappy, appealed, and lost,” whereas it should have said “Defendants were unhappy, appealed, and lost.” We do […]
Dissenting Circuit Judge Intimates No Fees Were Deserved Based on Scathing Comments of District Judge. Just to show you how attorney’s fees make the world go round and affirm our Mission Statement that they are often a controversial (and determinative) factor in commercial litigation, we have decided to do a quick synopsis of an
Fourth District, Division 2 Rebuffs Request for Over $40,000 in Fees. Plaintiff landlord sued and ultimately recovered $37,420 in delinquent rent (plus $10,295.96 in interest) from former tenants who had abandoned commercial premises being rented in the past. Landlord won a prior judicial arbitration, being awarded $13,622 in fees and costs. However, when landlord
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds No Abuse of Discretion. In Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea, Case No. G040902 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion against a cross-defendant arising from a trade secret misappropriation dispute, with the trial court awarding $112, 353.75 to cross-defendant under Code of Civil
Fees/Costs Were Justified Under Family Code Section 6344(a). Under Family Code section 6344(a), a trial court may award attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing party in a proceeding concerning a domestic violence restraining order after notice and a hearing on the issue. This provision was squarely at issue in the next case we
Arbitrator Enhances Plaintiff’s Lodestar by 3.0 Multiplier. We give thanks to Cal Biz Lit, who in his June 16, 2009 post described a “prove-up” arbitration award of $4.1 billion stemming from a very unusual lost commission dispute. He notes that the award was confirmed as a judgment by the Los Angeles County Superior Court
Second District, Division Eight Finds No Trope Prohibition on Fee Recovery. Witte v. Kaufman, 141 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1211 (2006) establishes that the law firm representing itself, with no attorney-client relationship, is not entitled to attorney’s fees for winning a SLAPP motion. This rule is based upon the holding in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms and Augments Fee Awards, After Also Determining that Defense Tactics Required Terminating Sanctions For Bad Faith Discovery Abuses. Here is another wild one, dictated by the unusual set of facts at play. It is also a modern day parable reminding all litigators that they need to avoid “hiding the
First District, Division 5 Determines Trial Court Properly Applied Serrano III Factors. Even under fee-shifting, public interest statutes, our California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 255, 49 (1977) (Serrano III) mandated that multiple factors be used to increase or decrease a lodestar figure requested by victorious litigants. In the next case
Second District, Division 8 Remands for Reduction Due to “Doubling Up” And Augmentation For Prior Fees That May Have Avoided Repetitive Work. Two sets of successful defendant attorneys were awarded, respectively, $100,000 and $50,000 for their efforts in obtaining SLAPP wins for their clients. Each set of attorneys had two counsel involved (with Cumis
