Cases: Settlement

Judgment Enforcement/Settlement: Settlement Agreement Silence On Fees Did Not Prevent Postjudgment Collection Fee Entitlement Where Labor Code Section 218.5 Provided Statutory Basis For Fees

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Settlement

  Postjudgment Fee Recovery Properly Allowed Against Settling Defendant.      Khanna v. Sonasoft Corp., Case No. H040007 (6th Dist. June 30, 2016) (unpublished) involved a situation where parties settled a wage/hour dispute under Labor Code section 218.5 under a judicially-supervised settlement agreement which was silent on fee recovery.  However, the trial court did allow postjudgment […]

Settlement: Ninth And Third Circuits Determine That Unaccepted Rule 68 Offers Do Not “Pick Off” Class Actions

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Settlement

  Ninth Circuit Holds That Class Representative Must Have Opportunity To Show Certification Warranted.     On January 29, 2016, we posted on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 163 (2016), which held that F.R.Civ.P. 68 unaccepted offers do not moot either an individual or a class action matter (usually

December 17, 2015 Unpublished Fee Decisions—Three Reversals, Two Affirmances On Variety Of Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Settlement

  Allocation—Artefex LP v. Bushman, Case No. B260737 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 17, 2015) (Unpublished).     In this one, plaintiffs won $15,000 on a contract breach claim after voluntarily dismissing tort claims, with the trial judge then awarding $191,256 in fees and $11,778.37 in costs based on a fees clause.  The 2/6 DCA reversed

Civil Rights, Employment, Family Law, Probate, Settlement: Four Unpublished “Power Ball” Post

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Probate, Cases: Settlement

  Meyer v. Brown, Case No. D066226 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 14, 2015) (Unpublished)—Family Law.     In this one, after an evidentiary hearing in which the court dismissed a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), the prevailing party recovered $7,500 out of a requested $15,800 in fees.  The fee-assessed, losing party appealed, but to no

Multiplier, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Substantiation: Three Unpublished “Power Ball” Decisions Synopsized

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Dept. of Parks and Recreation v. Schoendorf, Case No. H039321 (6th Dist. May 26, 2015) (unpublished).    In this one, an appellate court denied $300,000 in attorney’s fees against the State under a settlement agreement where “reasonable diligence” governed the fee entitlement.  Given that the prevailing party determination was discretionary under this clause and

Cases Under Review: SCOTUS Grants Certiorari On Whether A FRCP 68 Offer Of Complete Relief Moots Individual’s Claim And Moots Named Plaintiff’s Class Claim Before Certification

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Settlement

  Splits Among Circuit Courts On Both Issues—Ninth Circuit Decision Accepted For Review.      On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, a Ninth Circuit decision formerly published at 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014). Two issues involving the impact of FRCP 68 offers of complete

Allocation, Settlement: $40,349.50 Fee Recovery In Enforcing Settlement Agreement Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Settlement

  Plaintiffs’ Did Not Represent Himself, But Clients; However, No Allocation Required Based On Intertwined Exception.      Defendants were not happy when a trial judge not only enforced a settlement agreement under CCP § 664.6 but also awarded attorney’s fees of $40,349.50 based on a settlement fees clause. Their appeal of both rulings was unsuccessful

Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: Narrow Fee Clause Allowing For Recovery For Breach Of Settlement Agreement Did Not Justify Recovery Where No Finding Of Breach Made

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

  Broader Clause Might Have Resulted In Different Result.      This next case shows that care must be taken in crafting the scope of a fees clause, especially in a settlement agreement. The party successfully enforcing a settlement agreement was denied fees given that the fees clause was not broad enough to allow for the

Settlement/Poof!: Court Of Appeal Refuses To Enforce Settlement Because Email Failed Electronic Signature Test–And Attorney’s Fees Go Poof!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Settlement

Dot I’s and Cross T’s When Relying On An Electronic Signature!      In J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair, Case Nos. A140232, A141228 (1/2 Dec. 30, 2014) (Kline, Richman, Stewart), the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, because email and voicemail messages failed to

Scroll to Top