Cases: Settlement

Consumer Statutes/Settlement:  Settling Car Wrongful Repossession Plaintiff Properly Awarded $128,004.50 In Attorney’s Fees And $3,738.87 In Costs Even Though Defendants Settled For $8,600

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Settlement

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 […]

Fee Clause Interpretation/Settlement:  Settlement Agreement’s Carve-Out Language And Broad “Related To” Language Allowed For Fee Recovery In General Contractor – Subcontractor Dispute

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

  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

Civil Rights/Settlement:  Plaintiff Accepting $1,000 In Rule 68 Offer Entitled To Some Amount Of Fees Under Contract Principles

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Settlement

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

4/3 DCA Trifecta: Appellate Court Issues Three Fee Unpublished Decisions

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Settlement

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Plaza, LLC v. The Frank and Gertrude R. Doyle Foundation, Case No. G050766 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2016) (Unpublished) –Split Result Meant No Prevailing Party.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

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

Scroll to Top