Settlement Agreement Had No Waiver of Costs, Which Led to Reversal of an Order Denying Costs. There definitely is a practice lesson is the next case where a prevailing defendant obtained reversal of an order striking/taxing routine costs in postjudgment proceedings. Robertson v. St. John, Case No G043635 (4th Dist., Div. 3 […]
Concurrent Negotiation of Substantive Relief and Fees in Public Agency Cases Is Allowable. Adam W. Hofmann, an attorney in the San Francisco office of Hanson Bridgett, has written an article entitled “Negotiating Attorneys Fees” in the January 2011 edition of The California Lawyer. In it, he explains that California cases expressly reject any
Despite County’s Breach of Completion Date, Continued Negotiations Waived Any Breach and Mixed Results Sustained Fee Denial. Unless you have a clear win under a contractual fees clause, a trial judge has discretion to determine who the prevailing party is under Civil Code section 1717. We have blogged on many cases that underscore this
Fees Will Be Disclosed in a Future Hearing. Well, here is one with a twist, counterintuitive to courts being public and access friendly—whether settlements or attorney’s fees requests are involved (which generally are not kept under wraps). Galveston County 212th District Courty Judge Susan Criss has ordered that attorney’s fees to be paid
Presiding Justice Perluss, on behalf of the same panel of the Second District, Division 7 (yet in two separate unpublished decisions), gives us some good teachings on routine costs and Code of Civil Procedure section 998 issues. Costs: Mixed Result Means Prevailing Party Determination is in Lower Court’s Discretion. In Cordier v. Swanson
Fourth District, Division 3 Honors Stipulation By Its Terms on Forfeiture of Appellate Rights. Appellate courts will enforce the bargains struck between parties, even when they involve waivers of fundamental rights (such as the right to appeal). That happened in the next case we discuss. In Fridman v. Beach Crest Villas Homeowners
Third District Finds Settlement Agreement Carve-Out Preserved Right to Seek Fees Under Indemnity Agreement Clause. Bravo to the attorneys representing a prevailing party in the next case. They properly worded a partial settlement agreement carve-out so as to preserve their client’s ability to seek fees under a contract once the client prevailed against
First District, Division 1 Confronts Novel Procedural Circumstance in Unpublished Opinion. Our intermediate California appellate courts confront some very interesting cases in which two statutory schemes collide in unusual procedural settings. The next one involves a collision between Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (California’s pretrial offer of judgment statute) and Code of Civil
Although Not a Fees Issue, Decision Is Of Interest to All California Litigators. For all you litigators out there, every wonder if signing “APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT” language in a settlement agreement might result in exposure to a person other than your client (especially an opposing counsel)? An opposing counsel sued on
Appellate Court Also Correctly Rejected Defense Request for $55,000 in Expert Witness Fees. For all of you who have ever had trouble figuring out how 998 offers work in a fee-shifting context, the next unpublished decision is a good primer on how these offers are applied in real time. In Linear Electric, Inc.
