4/1 DCA Agrees With 2/6 DCA Opinion in Settle. Plaintiff’s counsel in Suarez v. City of Corona, Case No. D065949 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 29, 2014) (published), a prominent Orange County firm, must have reeled when a trial judge jointly and severally assessed $102,296.20 in fees and $3,753.85 in costs against both […]
However, One Cross-Defendant’s Dismissal From Entire Pleading Did Give Rise To Potential Fee Recovery, With Any Apportionment To Be Considered On Remand. The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), Civ. Code section 798 et seq., extensively regulates the landlord-tenant relationship between mobile home park owners and residents. It also has a fee-shifting provision in Civil
Special Statute Under Consideration Is Health and Safety Code § 1317.6. Health and Safety Code section 1317.6(j) provides that, in a civil action, any person who suffers personal harm as a result of certain emergency room service violations by a transferring or receiving hospital may recover reasonable attorney’s fees. In Camargo v.
Answers: “No” on Elder Abuse; “Yes” on Fraudulent Transfer. In Conservatorship of McQueen, Case No. S209376 (Cal. Supreme Court July 7 2014), the California Supreme Court faced an interesting timing issue as to when appellate fees must be filed for and sought in a post-judgment enforcement situation. Specifically, the plaintiff prevailed on both elder
Bad Faith Not Required, But Found and Sustained On Appeal. The interesting thing about this blog is that we, the co-contributors, learn something each day. Here is what we learned in the probate dispute of McDonnell v. Jarvis, Case No. H037704 (6th Dist. June 30, 2014) (unpublished), after we briefly summarize the case. The probate
Fee Award Did Not Have To Be Proportional To $45,441 Jury Verdict Recovery. In Ochoa v. San Juan, Case Nos. A130993/A131051 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 9, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court considered the review of a $184,330.40 to two tenants under a tenant ordinance/ local proposition with prevailing party provisions even though
County Produced Documents It Promised to Produce, So Company Was Not a Catalyst Behind Production. In HR Management Corp., Inc. v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. A139841 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 29, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff company losing a services contract to two other businesses filed a request under the California Public
No Apportionment Required Because Everything Involved Same Facts/Misconduct Allegations. Winning litigant in Sanders v. Garfield Langmoir-Logan, Case No. G048524 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 14, 2014) (unpublished) won an elder abuse claim, which has a fee-shifting statute in favor of the prevailing party under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a). The lower court
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10962 Fee-Shifting Provision At Issue. In K.I. v. Wagner, Case No. D063822 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 2, 2014) (published), the Fourth District, Division 1 appellate court decided that state/local social service claimants denied benefits at an administrative level, but winning in a superior court mandate proceeding, are
Once Some Degree of Success in Shown, Fee Claimant Must Satisfy Some Elements of Multi-Factored Test For Discretionary Fee Award. Pretty recently, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Donachie v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 2014 WL 928971 (2d Cir. Mar. 14, 2014), had to decide what factors are used to
