Federal Circuit Reversed $660,351.93 Fee Award to Google. Here is an interesting patent decision where a substantial fee award of $660,351.93 to Google was reversed by the Federal Circuit. In iLOR, LLC v. Google, No. 2010-1117, 1172 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2011), Google moved to recover fees and costs from a losing […]
Two Plaintiff Attorneys Awarded Damages of $20,400 Each. As reported by Julia Cheever of Bay City News in the online version of SFAppeal on December 21, 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California earlier had awarded two plaintiffs affiliated with an Islamic charity foundation (who happened to be attorneys)
Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions. 10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post. Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil
Above: Wrapping It Up. As we wish all readers the happiest of Holidays, we now present our top 20 published decisions from California appellate courts or the Ninth Circuit. This list is not meant to slight other important decisions in certain areas, but these are the ones that “rose to the top” from
First District, Division 4 Finds McCullough Reasoning Inapt; Also Refuses to Upset Cost Award to City in Separate Appeal. In City of Santa Rosa v. Patel, Case Nos. A124199/A124452 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 21, 2010) (certified for publication), City of Santa Rosa prevailed in a red light abatement action and was awarded
$77,750 of Restitution Order Consisted of Attorney’s Fees. Penal Code section 1202.4(f) is a very specialized fee-shifting statute under which a trial court in a criminal case can order a defendant to reimburse a third party for costs incurred in proving the criminal act (such as reimbursing a former employer for fees and costs
Fourth District, Division Sustains Finding That Suit Was Unmeritorious, Frivolous Litigation. Code of Civil Procedure section 1038 is a potent fee-shifting statute allowing public entities a way to recover the costs of defending against unmeritorious and frivolous litigation. (Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center, 19 Cal.4th 851, 857 (1998).) In relevant
Challenging Plaintiff Did Not Show Specificity in Padding, Duplication, or Unrelatedness Arguments To Support Fee Reduction. To our dear readers after Thanksgiving, here is a case with excellent reminders about steps you should take when challenging lower court fee awards. Make sure that you make specific challenges, not just arguments, supported with declarations from
Circuit Judge Posner Tackles the Jumble of Standards Utilized by Federal Circuit Courts. For those readers who practice intellectual property law (especially under the Lanham Act), we commend for reading Circuit Judge Posner’s recent decision in Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 4721581 (7th Cir. Nov. 23, 2010).
Third District Finds Good Faith of Agency in Releasing Redacted Documents Expeditiously Militated Against Award. California Public Records Act, Government Code section 6259, mandates attorney’s fees to a “prevailing” petitioner. However, even though the law is clear, the next case demonstrates that many (if not most) cases are factually dependent, with the circumstances
