Decision Affirming $244,287.50 Fee Award Under the California Public Records Act Remains Citable. We would like to thank Ina Bendis, an attorney practicing in Santa Clara and one of our readers, for an update on Bernardi v. County of Monterey, a Sixth District decision sustaining a $244,287.50 fee award in favor of plaintiffs and
Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms Trial Court’s Discretionary Refusal to Award Fees. Trees seem to be a popular subject of dispute between neighbors, either because they are destroyed as part of new construction or because they block scenic views of the ocean/nearby canyons. There are some special penalty and fee-shifting provisions relating to
Fifth District Finds that Corporations Code Section 800 Is a Bond/Security Statute, Not Fee Liability Statute. The Fifth District, in West Hills Farms, Inc. v. RCO Ag Credit, Inc., Case No. F054748 (5th Dist. Jan. 26, 2009) (certified for partial publication), found that a prevailing defendant in a shareholder derivative action is limited to
Owners Did Not Prevail Because Contractor Withdrew Cross-Claim During Deposition and Never Pursued Recovery Under It. Courts like to encourage narrowing of disputes by litigants. The next case illustrates how a non-prevailing contractor avoided attorney’s fees exposure under Civil Code section 3260(g), which authorizes fees/costs to the prevailing party involving a claim that
First District, Division 2 Demonstrates Appellate Scrutiny Of Basis For Fee Award. In past posts (see, e.g., our July 15, 2008 post on Patel v. Sagar), we have reviewed appellate decisions involving scrutiny of arbitration awards. Several decisions have affirmed arbitrator fee awards even though there was no clear basis, either by contract or
Second District, Division Seven Also Finds That Defendant’s 998 Offer Was Too Uncertain to Enforce. The next case involves a personal injury case, involving an interesting discussion of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4’s fee-shifting provision and the uncertain nature of the defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer involving other litigation lurking
ADA/CDPA Preemption Decision Is Amended Based on Later State Court Decision, With No Change in Result. In our July 3, 2008 post, we discussed Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, Case No. 06-56870 (9th Cir. 2008), which held that an award of attorney’s fees to defendant under the California Disabled Persons Act was preempted by the
First District, Division Four Affirms Fee/Costs Award on Appeal. In our category “Cases: Settlement,” we have reviewed past decisions where parties have won substantial fee/costs awards after reserving the issue for future determination as part of a settlement in an underlying case. The next opinion is one arising from the settlement of a lawsuit
Fourth District, Division Two Construes the Scope of the California Independent Wholesale Sales Representative Contractual Relations Act. The California Independent Wholesale Sales Representative Contractual Relations Act (Civ. Code sections 1738.10-1738.16) was enacted to protect wholesale sales representatives—“any person who contracts with a manufacturer, jobber, or distributor for the purpose of soliciting wholesale orders, is
Two Bills Enacted; One Vetoed Although a considerable segment of the state government's resources was consumed with general budgetary wrangling, two bills were enacted (effective January 1, 2009) and one bill vetoed with features involving attorney's fees/cost awards.
