$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Mediation and Arbitration blog posted, on Medina v. South Coast Car Company, Inc., Case No. D069820 which was unpublished at the time.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Plaza, LLC v. The Frank and Gertrude R. Doyle Foundation, Case No. G050766 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2016) (Unpublished) –Split Result Meant No Prevailing Party.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
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 June 30, 2016) (unpublished) involved a situation where parties settled a wage/hour dispute under Labor Code section 218.5 under a judicially-supervised settlement agreement which was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
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
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
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
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
