Who Says David Letterman Has The Only Good “Top Ten List”? Part 1 of 2: Five of the Top Ten Decisions We may not have the panache of David Lettermen, but we do offer our “Top Ten List” of 2008 attorney’s fees decisions although we have no guest star to count them off! […]
Second District, Division Two Affirms $269,492.50 Fee Award Against Former Attorney Under Retainer Fee Clause. A recurring theme of our website is that litigation frequently funnels (or devolves, depending on your perspective) down to which litigant wins attorney’s fees under a fee-shifting mechanism. The next case, yet again, is a classic example of how
Fourth District, Division Three Also Faces Grant/P R Burke Appeal Untimeliness Issue. Two interesting issues were raised in Presiding Justice Sills’ opinion on behalf of the Fourth District, Division Three in Kenney v. Tanforan Park Shopping Center, Case Nos. G038323 & G039372 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2008) (unpublished). The first concerns timeliness
Fourth District, Division Three Finds That Abandonment of Action Must Be Clear Before Dismissal Is Entered; With Dismissal Gone, Fee/Cost Award Is Also Reversed. California litigators frequently have heard the mantra that "cases are to be tried or heard on the merits." In line with that, there are corollary principles, such as pretrial
Fourth District, Division One Rejects Judicial Estoppel Argument and Awards Fees on Appeal (to be Determined by the Trial Court). Who says that everyone in the insurance industry is cozy-cozy with each other? Not a foregone conclusion at all, especially when assertions of claims mishandling may cast aspersions on the reputation of the claims
Second District, Division Four Also Rejects That Letter Containing Purported CCP Section 998 Offer Was Valid Where Opposing Party Not Given Full Statutory Period Within Which to Accept. Presiding Justice Epstein, writing for a 3-0 panel of the Second District, Division Four, recently authored an interesting opinion in which attorney’s fees were not allowed
Litigant Failing to Dismiss After Losing a Demurrer With Leave May Be in Danger, Fourth District, Division Two Rules. Under Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 602, 622 (1998) [see our Leading Cases], litigants potentially exposed to fee awards under Civil Code section 1717 can avoid adverse consequences by voluntarily dismissing their actions way
Seller Hit With Fees In a Water Accumulation Concealment Case; Neighbors Obtain Fees Against Neighbors In Tree Obstruction View Case. In these interesting financial times, we find that real estate disputes still fester and produce interesting posts on attorney’s fees issues. The next two cases do not disappoint, originating from our local Santa Ana
Section 1717 Fees Are Affirmed As to Husband, Reversed and Remanded As to Wife; Home Improvement Statutory Fees Are Affirmed As to Both Husband and Wife. Talk about a wild one. If any of you readers believe that legal cases do not mimic real life, you need to read and stay tuned for our
Second District, Division Five So Holds In Unpublished Opinion. In Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 617 (1998), the California Supreme Court held that plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of a contract-based action bars a prevailing defendant from recovering attorney's fees incurred in defending the contract claims under Civil Code section 1717. The next case involves
