Cases: Settlement

Costs/Settlements: FDCPA—SCOTUS Decides Nonprevailing Plaintiff Can Be Discretionarily Liable For Costs Without Proof Of Bad Faith; Second Circuit Informs Defendants How To Moot FDCPA Claims Through Rule 68 Offer

Cases: Costs, Cases: Settlement

  Marx Confronted Costs Issue, Providing Relief to Prevailing Defendants In District Court’s Discretion.      In Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1172 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an unsuccessful plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) case can be liable for defense costs even absent proof that […]

Probate/Prevailing Party/Section 1717/Settlement: Voluntary Dismissal Of Probate Petition To Confirm Settlement Properly Supported Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Opposing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Santisas Drove the Result in this One.      In Berry v. Berry, Case No. D062914 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 18, 2014) (unpublished), one co-trustee/aligned other parties were not happy when a probate court denied their request for attorney’s fees under a settlement agreement fees clause after another co-trustee (a brother, of course) voluntarily

Lodestar/Multiplier/Settlement/Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Recovering $2.25 Million Dependent Abuse Verdict Also Recoups Additional $333,727.56 In Fees And $31,016.22 In Costs

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Settlement

  Much Less Awarded Than Requested $1.042-1.390 Million in Fees; Plaintiff Stipulated to Costs Reduction, With Modified Judgment Entered Accordingly.      This case is an interesting illustration of how lower courts will reduce an inflated fee request to calculate a lodestar as well as enforce a “high/low” stipulation that was silent with regard to fees/costs.

Settlements: Be Careful What You Put In Request For Dismissal Judicial Council Form—Party Waived Rights To Seek Fees Based On Contents Of Dismissal

Cases: Settlement

  Prior Written Settlement Agreement Showed Intent to Reserve Fee Motion, But Dismissal Conduct “Trumped” Under Waiver Principles.      This next one is, as the trial court observed, “one of those unfortunate life lessons” for a party reserving the option to move to recoup fees under a settlement agreement. What happened is that despite settlement

Section 1717/Settlement: Couple Releasing Former Law Firm In Settlement Agreement Hit With Fee Recovery Of $230,803 In Favor Of Former Law Firm

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Contractual Clauses in Retainer and Settlement Agreements Conferred Fee Entitlement Upon Former Law Firm.      This next case demonstrates a couple of things—first, be careful how you draft settlement releases (because they may release inadvertent parties and give rise to fee recovery), and second, subjective intent evidence is generally not probative in parol evidence

Settlement: Trial Court Correctly Determined That Releases In Certain Real Estate Purchase Addenda Did Not Release Attorney Fee Exposure Claim Stemming From Earlier Purchase Agreement

Cases: Settlement

  Two Releases Much Narrower in Scope; Broader Release Could Not Be Interpreted to Encompass Fee Order Emanating From Earlier Purchase Agreement.      Scope of releases and timing is everything, as the next case–Barnard Enterprises, Inc. v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Case No. B246070 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 25, 2013) (unpublished)–demonstrates.      There,

Section 1717/Settlement: Lower Court Erred In Denying Contractual Fees To Prevailing Party Upon Written Reply Memorandum Request Before Party Had Chance To Properly File Motion For Fees

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Denial Order Changed to Provide Prevailing Party Was Entitled to Fees Upon Subsequent Motion.      In Salazar v. Salazar, Case No. D061716 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2013) (unpublished), a court enforced a settlement agreement between brothers, with the agreement and a promissory note containing fees clauses in the event of a default.

Settlement: Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Does Not Automatically Moot Plaintiff’s Claim Even If Would Result In Total Satisfaction

Cases: Settlement

  District Court Dismissal Is Reversed.      The Ninth Circuit, in Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp., Case No. 11-57239 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2013) (for publication), reversed a district court’s dismissal, determining that an unaccepted F.R.Civ. P. Rule 68 offer that would have satisfied plaintiff’s individual claims does not render the claim

Settlement/Section 1717/Trade Secret: Court of Appeal Honors Settlement Agreement Procedures Reserving Fee Determination

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement, Cases: Trade Secrets

Settlement Agreement’s Reservation Of Fee Determination Based on Trade Secret Misappropriation Statute Did Allow Lower Court To Determine If Fee Entitlement Proven In Postjudgment Fee Proceeding Denial of Fee Recovery Reversed and Remanded.      Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc., Case No. B243467 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 14, 2013) (published) demonstrates that appellate courts

Settlement: Rule 68–Defendant 68 Offeror Was Not Entitled To Fee Recovery, But Maybe Costs Recovery In Copyright Dispute Win

Cases: Settlement

  District Court’s Fee Entitlement Ruling Was Preclusive On Fees, But Not Necessarily On Routine Costs Recovery.      UMG Recording, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, No. 09-55902 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2013) (published) was an affirmance of a district court’s decision to deny recovery of attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act to a “winning”

Scroll to Top