Lack of Authority to Support Reversal Argument Waived the Challenge. The next case, Sparks Property Investments, LLC v. Mission Career College, LLC, Case No. E051124 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 23, 2012) (unpublished), actually demonstrates a fundamental tenet of appellate practice that must be observed in order to even get a challenge to […]
Messy Arbitration Case With Assignment of Rights Means Trouble. Liner Grode et al. v. Rotondo, Case No. B22106 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 22, 2012) (unpublished) was an appeal from a messy corporate governance/derivative arbitration in which no one clearly prevailed. However, the arbitrator–because equity can be used–did award fees to
Procedural Posture of Prior and Later Proceedings Was Determinative. One of the leading attorney’s fees cases in California under Civil Code section 1717 is Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal.3d 124, 129 (1979), where the California Supreme Court found that two individual shareholders claimed to be the alter egos of a bankrupt
Failure to Award 998 Offer Costs Reversed, Including Refusal to Compensate For Excluded Expert Testimony Whose Admissibility Was Uncertain, But Maybe Necessary. Above: Pocketbook considerations. 1942. Arthur S. Siegel, photographer. Library of Congress. Here is an interesting one that we predict will engender some interesting discussion on at least the main published Civil
Appellate Court Reversed Trial Court Fee Denial, Finding Unity of Interest Rule Only Applied to Costs, Not Fee Awards. Hill v. Affirmed Housing Group, Case No. H035541 (6th Dist. Mar. 12, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where trustees of a trust sued an LLC and its managing member on the theory that LLC’s
Although Controlling the Litigation, Nonsignatory Had No Rights Assigned Under The Fees-Clause Bearing Settlement Agreement. Estate of Bennett, Case Nos. G043050 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2011) (unpublished), although a probate action, actually is a Civil Code section 1717 fees clause case, with the fee award affirmed by a 3-0
Mutuality Was There, Appellate Panel Rules. Note co-maker sued another note co-maker regarding repayment of a $500,000 loan to Vineyard Bank. Plaintiff lost this suit to one of the non-settling co-makers, with loser basically arguing that the attorney’s fees clause in the note only really applied to a conventional lender versus note maker
Trial Court’s Denial of Fees Reversed Because Bank Was Prevailing Party. Meeker v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. B225289 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2012) (unpublished) illustrates that Civil Code section 1717’s mandate of awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party is indeed obligatory in nature, and that fee award denials–even
After All, When Initial Loser Became the Eventual Winner, Eventual Loser’s Fees Showed Eventual Winner’s Request Not All That Bad. Bioquest Venture Leasing v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc., Case No. B225195 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 22, 2012) (unpublished) is one of those procedurally convoluted cases where plaintiff initially won and was awarded attorney’s
Opinion Will Give Added Importance to Section 998 Costs(Fee)-Shifting. Well, well, we can report that there has been an interesting appellate “explosion” of opinions in the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 area. The First District, Division 5, has entered into the fray. In SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. v. Five Bridges
