Appellate Court Disagreed With Lower Court, Because PRA Litigation Was Not "Clearly Frivolous" So As To Justify Fee Order. In Bertoli v. City of Sebastopol, Case No. A132916 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 20, 2015) (published), a petitioner/her attorney were hit with an adverse $44,630 fee award (out of a requested $82,380) in […]
Order Taxing Costs By Over Half Was No Abuse of Discretion, Either. In Berro v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223515 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff—an ex-Los Angeles fire department captain—lost a FEHA case (mainly through a summary judgment motion), but the lower court refused to award Fire
Appellate Court Agrees With Trial Court Analysis, Which Departed From Contrary S.D. Cal. Federal Decision. Plaintiff search engine optimization firm sued defendant marketing firm for breach of contract, prompting defendant to countersue plaintiff (as a cross-defendant) for breach of contract and for a violation of Penal Code section 502 (a computer hacking claim
Plaintiff Did Prevail And Amounts of Awards No Abuse of Discretion. In Oiye v. Fox, Case No. H038410 (6th Dist. Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff won about a $500,000 verdict against a defendant who was alleged to molest her, with defendant pleading no contest to two lewd counts (being sentenced to 6 years
$18,900 Fee Award Goes POOF!, But Opponent’s CCP § 128.7 Motion Correctly Denied Where Defendants Trimmed Fee Request Down After Getting Safe Harbor Documents. This next opinion, Ashegian v. Beirne, Case No. B254020 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished), is interesting because it deals with a first impression issue relating to
Trial Judge Needed to Explore Impact of Sino Century Development Case. In Bongan v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., Case No. A137303 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 12, 2014) (unpublished), the lower court had awarded $15,100 in attorney’s fees in favor of a defendant and against a plaintiff/her attorney under California Rules of Court,
Highmark/Octane Recent Decisions Did Not Require Remand. In our “In the News” post of September 8, 2014, we explored a recent Federal Circuit decision—Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgt. System, Inc.–remanding a fee recovery for reconsideration after SCOTUS’ 2014 Highmark/Octane decisions. However, Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Hastie2Market, LLC, No. 2013-1537 (Fed. Cir.
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.
