We Predicted This Result In Our February 19, 2014 Post On The Issue. Way back in February 19, 2014, we did a post on small claims fee recovery, predicting that the $150 cap for fee recovery for a small claims fee litigant winning after a superior court de novo hearing would “trump” a […]
Failure To Oppose Fee Request Sealed The Deal. In Wofford v. Hollicks, Case No. B254518 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 20, 2015) (unpublished), an in pro per plaintiff brought a civil rights action based on a car impounding against the LAPD. He lost a summary judgment motion and did not oppose a request for
Award Of $101,154 Out Of Requested $337,180 In Fees Affirmed On Appeal. Plaintiff prevailed on both breach of lease and fraudulent transfer claims against the defense, with the lease having a fees clause allowing for recovery of fees geared to “enforce” the contract. When it came time to move for attorney’s fees, plaintiff
Above: The Sweet Prospect Behind Us, 1789. Library of Congress. Both Parties To Blame, So No Appellate Fees To Prevailing Party Upon Review. Pets and animals seem to foster a lot of litigation—and, believe me, co-contributors Marc and Mike love their dogs. The next one is for you dog lovers, but the facts should
On June 27, 2015, we posted on Law Offices of Marc Grossman, a Fourth District, Division 2 unpublished decision which held the Trope prohibition for recovery of attorney’s fees was not applicable to a California Public Records Act (CPRA) petition. We can now report that the decision was certified for publication on July
Defendant Prevailed, After Acrimonious Email Battle Involving His Wife Who Was The Losing Plaintiff’s Former Wife. Plaintiff, Mr. Grier, former husband of Nancy Truong, filed a civil harassment petition against Ms. Truong’s current husband, Mr. Baturyn. Needless to say, emotions ran high. Even though plaintiff obtained some discovery and an initial TRO, he
Trope Prohibition Inapplicable to Public Records Act Request. In Law Offices of Marc Grossman v. Victor Elementary School Dist., Case No. E059579 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 26, 2015) (unpublished), a law firm representing a student of defendant elementary school sought public records reflecting the amount of money spent defending student’s assault action.
Matter Remanded To Consider Fees Request Under Two Statutes. In Christner v. Sweeney, Case No. H040736 (6th Dist. June 19, 2015) (unpublished), an ex-boyfriend defendant defeated a TRO brought by plaintiff ex-girlfriend from a personal/business relationship under the Domestic Violence Protection Act. The lower court then denied defendant’s request for fees of $49,812.10 under
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
Nothing Showed Lawsuit Was Clearly Frivolous and No Billing Records Made Substantiation Possible. In Kent v. Lake Don Pedro Community Services Dist., Case Nos. F068354/F069197 (5th Dist. May 14, 2015) (unpublished), a third appellate round, plaintiffs challenging Brown Act violations by the District were hit with an adverse fee award of $175,000 under
