Block Billing Per Se Will Not Tank a Fee Request. Under our category "Homeowner Associations," we have reviewed numerous decisions where homeowners or HOAs feel the sting of "victory or defeat," even if ABC’s famous "World of Sports" mantra was not directly in play. Well, we have another one to share with you—where
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms a Lower Fee Request Based Upon Lack of Clarity. This next case, from our local Fourth District, Division 3 appellate court, reinforces a lesson that should be clear from now—if you are a fee claimant, provide the court a roadmap on why you should get the best (and highest)
Fourth District, Division 3 Does Find That Fee “Estimates” For Future Work On Reply Papers/Appearance Adequately Underpins Ultimate Award. Although it has a great discussion of the Flatley exception and the circumstances where the litigation privilege is trumped by more specific statutes, our local Fourth District, Division 3 does have a nice discussion
Ninth Circuit Finds Sanctions Were Warranted and Were Not Excessive in Nature. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 allows a district judge to sanction an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously” for those excess costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees reasonably incurred as a result of attorney’s conduct. Recklessness suffices under
Second District, Division 5 Sustains Fee Denial Based on Failure to Address Fee Substantiation Inadequacies. The next case we examine teaches a staple of appellate law: make sure you address all of the trial court’s reasons for a ruling on appeal. If you don’t, risk having the appellate court affirming based on the failure
Court of Appeal Also Decides Prejudgment Interest Not Allowable on Fee Awards. Okay, so who says we don’t try to give you readers a synopsis of decisions (even though some might be a little wordy)? The next decision—Woosley v. State of California, Case No. B209890 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 16, 2010) (unpublished)—involves some
Fourth District, Division 1 Sustains Lower Court Determination Based on Its Experience With Hourly Rates. In Cauchon v. Forest River, Inc., Case Nos. D053864/D054433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 9, 2010) (unpublished), mobilehome purchasers did well in a Song-Beverly Act Warranty Act suit with a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of prevailing plaintiffs. Purchasers
Attorney Declaration as to Hourly Rates and Description of Work Adequately Substantiated Fee Petition Claims. Defendant contractor and its president, sole shareholder, sole director, and sole employee (found to be the alter ego of the contractor) were found liable for $670,923 in damages in a construction defect lawsuit to purchasers of the Livermore
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds That Fee Recordkeeping and Trust Litigation Expenses Must Be Scrutinzed Closely to Determine if Fees Were Reasonable and Appropriate From a Trust Benefitting Perspective. Donahue v. Donahue, Case Nos. G040628/G041503 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 24, 2010) (certified for publication), is sure to be a widely cited opinion when
Almost $500,000 in Total Fees Assessed Against Losing Homeowners. For all you Olympic watchers out there, this next case will resonate the famous “agony of defeat” line from ABC’s Wide World of Sports. In Sharp v. Anderson, Case No. B212528 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 18, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiff neighboring real property owners
