Domestic Violence Restraining Order Fee Recovery At Issue. In our April 23, 2015 post, we discussed Faton v. Ahmedo, Case No. D066119 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2015), which was a domestic violence restraining order case raising procedural and Judicial Council form issues. It was unpublished at the time, but we can […]
Third Circuit Follows Four Other Circuit Courts On “Catalyst Theory.” In Templin v. Independence Blue Cross, No. 13-4493 (3d Cir. May 8, 2015) (precedential), the Third Circuit determined that litigants who catalyze the defense to change conduct in ERISA cases can discretionarily collect attorney’s fees even if no judgment is entered—different than “prevailing
A Reader Comments On Our Post About Willow Bend v. City of Holtville. Above: Neideffer Camp, Holtville, Imperial Valley. Dorothea Lange, photographer. Spring 1937. Library of Congress. Attorney Larry M. Hoffman of Vancouver, Washington, the advocate for appellants in Willow Bend v. City of Holtville, has written to us to comment about our
Various Technical and Due Process Argument Rejected. In Faton v. Ahmedo, Case No. D066119 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2015) (unpublished), the man in a domestic violence restraining order battle with a lady he dated for a period of time eventually lost the DVRO proceeding and then was ordered to pay attorney’s
State Department’s Interpretation of Statutory Scheme Rejected. Although Aguilera v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, Case No. D066701 (4th Dist., Div. 1 April 2, 2015) (published) is a very practice-bound, technical decision, we still report on all areas of attorney’s fees. Aguilera held that Welfare and Institutions Code section 14124.76’s formula, not
Impact of Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Liability Considered By Appellate Panel. Plaintiff (produce seller) sued a restaurant (Jack’s La Jolla) and its controlling officer Berkley to recover monies owed for the produce, claiming that Berkley had signed a guaranty and Berkley was subject to personal liability for restaurant’s contractual obligations (under an
Fee Entitlement Not Present; Normal Routine Prevailing Party Costs Definition Did Not Apply Based On A Pragmatic Inquiry. In City of Ridgecrest v. Howard, Case No. F068679 (5th Dist. Mar. 5, 2015) (unpublished), defendants were ordered to abate a public nuisance on properties having alleged dilapidated equipment and other items. However, one defendant
Degree of Success Was Key, Where Plaintiff Went From Obtaining $270,000 To Only $500. Lemaire v. Covenant Care California, LLC, Case No. B248672 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 23, 2015) (published) is a situation where plaintiff won $270,000 in statutory damages for the defense failure to maintain complete and accurate medical records at
Public Entity Properly Denied Fees/Costs Under Section 1038 By Simply Pointing To Entirety Of Record. Public entities seeking to recover fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038—a fee-shifting section allowing such entities to recoup fees and costs if they can demonstrate a suit was brought in bad faith or without
Issue Was One Of First Impression for Ninth Circuit. In Black Mesa Water Coalition v. Jewell, No. 12-16980 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2015) (published), the Ninth Circuit considered the “first impression” issue of the standard of review to be used for purposes of scrutinizing fee decisions made under the Surface Mining Control and
