Don’t Ignore Civil Code § 1708.6(c) . . . . But It Is Discretionary In Nature. Here is a nice fee entitlement statute in the domestic violence tort area (bet a lot of you did not know there was such a statutory tort). Civil Code section 1708.6(c) expressly provides that the court in […]
If Trial Court Determines Common Facts Overlap Compensable and Noncompensable Claims for Fee Recovery, Usually Treated as Discretionary Exercise Upon Appellate Review. In Conservatorship of McQueen (Taye v. Drumgoole), Case No. A126825 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 14, 2011) (unpublished), family attorney and other defendants were found liable for financial elder abuse, concealment, conversion,
Court of Appeal Agrees With Reasoning in Hinerfeld-Ward. Plaintiff contractor sued defendant owner for breach of contract, mechanic’s lien foreclosure, violation of the Civil Code section 3260.1 prompt payment statute relating to withheld progress payments, promissory fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud. The case was arbitrated, with plaintiff eventually awarded $245,763.09 in damages against
Appellate Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal Denied For Lack of Separate Motion and More. In Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., Case No. 10-35388 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2011) (for publication), the district court determined that a litigant had acted in bad faith so that $78,109.95 in attorney’s feees and costs should be assessed against him
Defendant Was Victor Both Below and On Appeal. In our March 25, 2009 post, we explored Krug v. Maschmeier, 172 Cal.App.4th 796 (2009), which held that a winning defendant in a civil harassment proceeding could be awarded attorney’s fees in the discretion of the lower court. Now, an appellate decision has applied this
Abuse of Discretion Standard Did Not Prevent Reversal When Record Showed Errors, According to Sixth District. In an interesting contrast to the way the abuse of discretion standard was deferentially applied in our contemporaneous post in Murrell v. Rolling Hills Community Association, the Sixth District found that the trial court abused its discretion in
Third District Affirms Fee Denial in Technical Education Code Area. Okay, folks. We told you early on in this blog we would cater to all areas. We hold true to our promise, summarizing a recent decision from the Third District on a fee-shifting provision contained in Education Code section 44944(e)(2), which contains a mandatory
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
