Fourth District, Division Three Rejects Hitting Husband With Six Figure Sanction and Commends Lower Court for Its Restraint. Family Code section 271’s sanctions has been discussed in several previous posts: July 8, 2008—In re Marriage of MacIntyre and In re Marriage of Falcon & Fyke and July 17, 2008—In re Marriage […]
Affirmance of Lower Court’s Order Dictated Under Abuse of Discretion Review Standard. Cross-complainants lost two anti-SLAPP motions directed against their malicious prosecution complaints. As we have seen before, fee awards of some nature are mandatory to prevailing defendants in these situations under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). See Ketchum v.
Fourth District, Division Three Affirm Lower Court Determination That Requested Fees Were Excessive–Involving Overstaffing, Vague Block Billing, and Billing for Anti-SLAPP Motion Tasks. Prevailing defendants in anti-SLAPP proceedings are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c). However, the prevailing defendant can only recover for anti-SLAPP activities, not
Information Showing Less of an Income Disparity Properly Considering in Determining Amount of Fees Awardable to Mother For Prevailing in Prior Appeals. Under Family Code section 2030, the trial court has discretion to award attorney’s fees in family law actions to ensure that each party has access to legal representation. In
Second District Reminds Us That the Two Concepts Are Distinct in Nature in Unpublished Decision. Sometimes succinct opinions contain gems. That happens to be the case with Tennen v. Finstad, Case No. B202404 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 6, 2008) (unpublished). This decision reinforces that “prevailing party” principles at issue
Second District Reverses Denial of Fees/Costs to Judgment Creditor For Efforts to Enforce Judgment in Bankruptcy Court. Based on supremacy clause issues, thorny issues have arisen over the years as to what attorney’s fees and costs a judgment creditor can obtain for bankruptcy court activities when a subsequent state court action
Chief Justice Kozinski Overturns Excessive Fee Haircut And Sets A Presumptive 10% Standard For Review of Fee Haircuts. Part of blogging is to recognize and “hat tip” posts by our colleagues. Greg May, of the California Blog of Appeal, posted a very informative post on Moreno v. City of Sacramento, Case
First District Affirms Fee Award to Homeowners’ Association, Association President, and Sleepless Resident Prevailing on an anti-SLAPP Motion. Unless you are an Iron Man or a fortunate individual with a high metabolism, sleep is a precious commodity. Loss of sleep can definitely impede quality of life for many people. Sometimes, as
Sixth District Finds That Stock Option and Voting Trust Agreements Were Not Interrelated and Never Sued Upon In Winning Litigant’s Complaint. Under Civil Code section 1717, one needs a written agreement with a fee clause for potential attorney’s fees recovery. Many times, there are several agreements involved in an overall transaction,
Second District Eliminates a $254,087.77 Fee/Costs Award to Prevailing CEQA Plaintiff Where Significant Public Benefit Element Not Demonstrated As a Matter of Law. Under California’s private attorney fees statute, a trial court may award attorney’s fees to a successful party in any public interest action involving an important public right if
