First District Reverses Fee Sanctions Award and Award to State Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038, But Affirms 998 Award to State. This next case establishes that fee sanctions must have a firm basis in legislatively-authorized statutes (or implementing rules) that have solid due process protections. Relying only on inherent […]
Fourth District, Division One Reverses $80,971.78 Award Against City of El Centro and Imperial County We have yet to talk about litigation expenses (including attorney’s fees) awardable under California’s eminent domain statutory scheme. This next case gives us an introduction to wet everyone’s appetite in this area.
Fourth District, Division Two Affirms Fee Award of $80,000 and Expert Witness Fees Sanctions of $97,115 Against Former Husband. In past posts, we have explored the sanctions awardable under Family Code section 271. (See posts of July 8, and 17, 2008.) We now examine this provision again, coupled with other fee-shifting
Second District, in Kim II, Reverses Denial of Fee to Settling Plaintiff Who Obtained Rescission and Restitution in a “Lemon Porsche” Case. The nice thing about our blog is that many cases come back to illustrate fee recovery principles or give us a chance to elaborate on past posts. The next
Fifth District Affirms Trial Court’s Fee Enhancement Award Upon Remand. In Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 785 (2006) (Robertson I), the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs (a couple) for Fleetwood’s failure to repair their defective travel trailer and
First District, Division Three Affirms Large Fee Award and Adds Costs on Appeal in Favor of Contractor. Fee shifting statutes can have disastrous consequences, shifting the risk allocation in dramatic fashion such that fees get awarded to a winning party even though they dwarf the amount at issue in the underlying
Court of Appeal Sets Forth Factors to Be Weighed Under Family Code sections 2030 and 2032. In In re Marriage of Kline Jr., Case No. D051137 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 11, 2008) (unpublished), a panel of the San Diego-based appellate court reviewed the principles governing discretionary award of attorney’s fees
Code of Civil Procedure sections 116.780 and 116.790 Provide Answers. Mike Hensley recently had to appear at a trial de novo of a small claims judgment won by a developer client. Small claims jurisdiction reaches disputes of either $5,000 or $7,500, depending on the type of case. When a losing litigant
Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court’s Reliance on Contract Hourly Rates and Overturns Its Erroneous Determination That Litigation Was Unnecessary. This post should be of particular interest to land use and environmental attorneys, showing how appellate courts take interest in making sure private attorney general fee awards are fair to litigants truly
Second District, Division Six Finds For Disabled Plaintiff in Unpublished Decision. In our July 8, 2008 post, we reviewed the Second District, Division Six’s published decision of Molski v. Arciero Wine Group, in which the appellate court affirmed a fee award against Mr. Molski and in favor of a prevailing defendant
