Plaintiff’s Case Was Brought and Prosecuted Without Reasonable Cause, But Remanded So Discretion Could Be Exercised. Above: The Federal Theatre presents "I want a policeman" by Rufus King & Milton Lazarus. Fastest moving comedy of the season : First time in San Diego. Federal Arts Project. 1936-41. Library of Congress. Code of Civil […]
Lack of Court or Judicial Proceedings Was Dispositive. Ms. Thornton, near the end of her term as a Board member of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, was appointed as an ALJ for the Board, a hire that was subsequently investigated by the State Auditor and Sacramento District Attorney’s Office for potential Government
$10,974 Fee Recovery to College District Reversed on Appeal. Okay, real estate fans, we have an attorney’s fees decision in the stop notice area. In Tri-State, Inc. v. Long Beach Community College Dist., Case No. B231848 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 12, 2012) (certified for publication), the appellate court decided that a
Only $162,500 In $1.7 Million Requested Fees Were Awarded–A Result Sustained On Appeal. Rey v. Madera Unified School Dist., Case No. F061532 (5th Dist. Feb. 28, 2012) (certified for publication) is somewhat of a sobering decision, reminding all of us that inflated fee requests can and will be severely discounted by lower courts,
Court of Appeal Followed Logic of Hinerfeld-Ward Decision. In Center Circle Constr. Corp. v. 652 Chautauqua, LLC, Case No. B226279 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 22, 2012) (unpublished), contractor prevailed at trial, but did not prevail on a prompt payment statute violation that payments were wrongfully withheld. The trial court determined that contractor’s
$36,000 Infringement Win Was Hardly the “Sting”–But $162,728.22 Adverse Fee Award Was. The Copyright Act gives district courts a wide latitude to exercise equitable discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in copyright infringement cases. 17 U.S.C. § 505; Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1229
Except For $83,229.49 Component Sent For Remand Determinations, $836,899.99 Was the Fee Hit Against Losing Plaintiff. Plaintiff suing for trade dress protection under the Lanham Act lost a functionality-oriented case in Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., Case Nos. 10-17007 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012) (for publication). The
Except For $83,229.49 Component Sent For Remand Determinations, $836,899.99 Was the Fee Hit Against Losing Plaintiff. Plaintiff suing for trade dress protection under the Lanham Act lost a functionality-oriented case in Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., Case Nos. 10-17007 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012) (for publication). The
Respective Fee/Costs Awards of $232,435.50 and $101,078 Are Sustained. Just to show you that the losing cases can unleash a lot of fee/costs exposure based on Labor Code statutes, the next one is a case in point. In 1538 Cahuenga Partners, LLC v. Fabe, Case No. B222023 (consolidated) (2d Dist., Div. 8
Case #1: Appellate Sanctions Are Imposed. In Alexandros v. Cole, Case No. G043715 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 30, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a minority shareholder breach-of-fiduciary duty suit against various defendants and then lost their appeal. However, the appellate court also awarded $10,000 (out of a requested $30,000) in sanctions to defendants
