First District, Division 4 Applies a Cardinal Appellate Principle. As we have stressed in past posts on appellate practice, litigants needs to make sure that they provide an adequate appellate record for review of fee determinations. If they do not do so, affirmance is a foregone conclusion. The next case illustrates this well. […]
First District, Division 5 Interprets Civil Code Section 798.85 Fee-Shifting Provision. Civil Code section 798.85 is a special fee-shifting provision arising under the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL, Civil Code section 798 et seq). It provides: “In any action arising out of the provisions of this chapter the prevailing party shall be entitled to
Second District, Division 8 Reinforces that Contemporaneous Time Record Submission Is Not a Fee Recovery Requirement. This next case illustrates two important principles under Civil Code section 1717: (1) you need some fee entitlement basis—either a statute or contractual fees clause; and (2) California state law is more lenient on fee substantiation, although it
First District, Division 3 Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of Fees After Litigant Waited 17 Months Before Moving For a Fee Award. Boy, we knew that the next case was ominous for somebody when the appellate court opened with this sentence: “By their inaction, counsel for the plaintiff, have permitted a large measure of victory
Second District, Division 3 Sustains Denial of Fees under Family Code section 6344(a). The next case reinforces the notion that if you are going to appeal, make sure you develop an adequate record on review—especially so when a fee entitlement statute is permissive and any fee ruling is scrutinized under the abuse of
Second District, Division Two Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Not Awarding $300,670 in Attorney’s Fees to Winning Teacher. The next case concerns a statutory fee-shifting statute—Education Code section 44944(e)(2). It also is an interesting illustration of how appellate courts vary in finding whether a lower court should have articulated the basis for its
11th Circuit Upholds Denial of Attorney’s Fees Where Attorney Failed to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice of Claim Before Suing Other Attorneys Under FLSA. Hat Tip to Benjamin G. Shatz of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, for bringing Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, L.P. (11th Cir. No. 08-10848, March 3, 2009) (published) to
Court of Appeal Applies Gemini Bad Faith Test Under Civil Code Section 3426.4. Civil Code section 3426.4 is a special fee-shifting provision in the trade secret misappropriation area. It authorizes a trial court to make a discretionary award of fees and costs to the prevailing party “if a claim of misappropriation is made in
Second District, Division 7 Underscores Mainstay of Appellate Practice. In Pakravan v. Halajian, Case No. B201864 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2009) (unpublished), former dentists in a partnership got into a war over various aspects of running a Lancaster dental practice. Litigation eventually erupted, with plaintiffs winning the major part of the battle,
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
