Gail Killefer, ADR Administrator For The USDC, Central District, Offers A Practice Tip For Mediators And Parties In Federal Cases. Here's the tip from Gail Killefer: "Motions for attorney's fees may not be referred to a Magistrate Judge in the Central District unless the parties have consented to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes. See […]
Nothing Demonstrated Agreement Was Protected By Mediation Privilege And Failure To Object To Particular Entries Waived Any Real Challenge To Reasonableness Of Claimed Fees. Although there was some initial confusion on whether defendants wanted to enforce a settlement agreement with a “prevailing parties” fees clause, it looks like defendants took the plunge and then
Result Is That Matter Is Remanded So Post-Offer Reasonable Fees Can Be Awarded; Both Majority and Concurring Opinions Suggest School Districts Need To Make Their Offers Clear In Nature. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) is a boutique practice involving a federal statute under which parents and school districts can resolve disputes over
Decision Deals With Care In Drafting Settlement/Consent Judgment Language. On December 2, 2017, we posted on Howeth v. Coffelt, a Fourth District, Division One unpublished decision showing how fee recovery must be obtained in a settlement/consent judgment arrangement where the remedies were narrow in nature. We can now report that the case was certified
Case Illustrates Care In Drafting Remedies Available Under a Consent Judgment Via Settlement. Howeth v. Coffelt, Case No. D072136 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2017) (unpublished) is a case reminding practitioners to pay particular attention to the remedies for a consent judgment ending a dispute reached through a settlement agreement. Here, a
$128,004.50 Fee Award Sustained Under Consumer Fee-Shifting Statutes Where $8,600 Was The Settlement Amount. On September 20, 2017, we posted, and co-contributor Marc on his California Mediation and Arbitration blog posted, on Medina v. South Coast Car Company, Inc., Case No. D069820 which was unpublished at the time. In that case, the appellate court
Specific Settlement Agreement Terms Shot Down The Defense’s “No Fee Entitlement” Argument. The defense in this wrongful repossession action under various consumer statutes with fee-shifting provisions was likely shocked by a trial court’s award of $128,004.50 in attorney’s fees and $3,738.87 in costs given that the settlement amount to plaintiff was only $8,600 subject
Need For Precise Draftsmanship Demonstrated By This Case. In Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., Case No. E063551 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 8, 2017) (published), general contractor, subcontractor, and subcontractor’s general liability carrier were drawn into a dispute about water damage to a construction site. A partial settlement was reached by
District Judge Erred In Denying Any Fees Based On Incorrect Civil Rights Fee-Shifting Analysis. In Miller v. City of Portland, No. 14-35783 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017) (published), a civil rights plaintiff accepted a defense Rule 68 offer for $1,000 with reasonable attorney’s fees to be determined by the district court. After plaintiff moved
Source: Wikipedia. Article “Trifecta.” Prevailing Party/Settlement: Goldenwest Plaza, LLC v. The Frank and Gertrude R. Doyle Foundation, Case No. G050766 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2016) (Unpublished) –Split Result Meant No Prevailing Party. This case was a messy partition case where differing ownership interests with disputes on management of a shopping center brought
