Discretion Only Goes So Far, Says Our Local Appellate Court Presiding Justice Sills, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, determined in La Cuesta v. Benham, Case No. G043788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 29, 2011) (certified for publication) that discretion can only go so far when a litigant […]
Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal Without Effect; Offset for Prior Settlements Meant No Change in Result Due to Her Prior 998 Offer. A trifecta of issues was considered by the appellate court in Goldstein v. Williams, Case No. D057826 (Mar. 24, 2011) (unpublished). In this one, plaintiff sued for breach of contract and in
. . . However, Remand For Fee Recovery Evaluation on Dismissed Tort Claim. For you folks entertaining voluntarily dismissals of actions, must reading in this area–if you are bothered about attorney’s fees exposure–is our state supreme court’s decision in Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 602, 607-608 (1998) [one of our Leading Cases]. We
March 2011 Article in The Advocate Magazine Explores Central Fee Issues. For readers wanting a recent primer on key issues in attorney’s fees litigation, we commend for reading Joseph P. Wohrle’s article “Identifying Key Issues in Attorney’s Fees Litigation” which is published in the March 2011 edition of Advocate Magazine. Mr. Wohrle, a
ABC-Learn, Inc. v. Coronado, Case No. B219107 (2d Dist., Div. 2 March 2, 2011) (Unpublished). In this one, a prevailing defendant appealed a lower court’s denial of his request to recoup $136,140 in attorney’s fees under a commercial lease dispute involving a lease agreement and unsigned purchase agreement/joint escrow instructions. The problem here was
Second District, Division 6 So Holds In Suit Against Mortgage Lender. The Second District, Division 6, in Smith v. Home Loan Funding, Inc., Case No. B219372 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 24, 2011) (certified for publication), has held that a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim is contract-based,
Article Highlights Possible Division on Contractual Claim Partial Dismissals Under Section 1717. Robert Freitas and Siddhartha Venkatesan, in a February 16, 2011 article entitled “Recovering Attorneys Fees” in The Recorder (e-newsletter available through Law.com), have written a nice, short article on recovering attorney’s fees under Civil Code section. Among under topics, they discuss fee
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
Defendant’s Fee Award Reversed Because Plaintiff’s Pleadings Based on Statutory Corporations Code Duty, Not a Contract With a Fees Clause. Tabibian v. Waldman, Case No. B220760 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 9, 2011) (unpublished) is a case where plaintiff sued for breach of fiduciary duty/loyalty under Corporations Code section 309 even though there was
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
