Fourth District, Division Three Finds the Lack of Evidence to be Dispositive. If you are going to challenge a fee claim as being unreasonable or excessive in nature, you need to be prepared to present evidence to back up these arguments. The failure to do so will likely lead to affirmance of a fee […]
$9,321 Award Sustained Where No Error Shown By Losing Plaintiff. In Nejadpour v. Fink, Case No. B204937 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 10, 2008) (unpublished), plaintiff lost an anti-SLAPP motion and defendant was awarded $9,321 in mandatory fees out of a requested $10,296. The trial court actually accepted plaintiff’s argument that some discovery fees
Plaintiff’s Failure to Challenge Specifics of Fees Award Ends the Matter. The next case we discuss confronts somewhat conflicting themes in our whole blog. The amount of attorney’s fees award is usually a discretionary call reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. However, if one appeals and only challenges the correctness of the
Fourth District, Division One Rules That Lower Court May Have Not Used Proper Lodestar Determination Factors in Drastically Cutting Fee Request, Suggesting It Parts Company From Reasoning in The Second District’s EnPalm Decision. Notwithstanding the breadth of the abuse of discretion standard, the next case illustrates that appellate court will overturn fee awards
California Public Records Act: Unpublished Decision Reviewed On Our October 1, 2008 Post Is Certified For Publication Sixth District Certifies Bernardi v. County of Monterey For Publication. On October 1, 2008, we posted a review of Bernardi v. County of Monterey, Case No. H031648 (6th Dist. Sept. 30, 2008). We indicated that this case
Transylvania Feral Court Slashes Attorney’s Fees Award Drastically For Spoor Work Product. Although we usually confine our posts to California-oriented cases, settlements, or fee issues, the following fee reduction ruling by a Philadelphia-based federal district judge was too good to pass up and also offers some sobering lessons to practitioners seeking fee awards when
Unpublished Decision Nicely Surveys Such Topics As Standard of Review, Lodestar, and Multiplier Principles. In our June 30, 2008 post, we discussed a Shasta County Superior Court’s award of attorney’s fees against the City of Redding under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Government Code section 6259(d) provides for a mandatory
First District, Division Two Reverses Fee Award For Further Remand Proceedings to Scrutinize Substantial Fee Award. In our “Cases: Fee Substantiation” category, we have reviewed past decisions showing that California has a fairly “loosey goosey” standard for substantiating the amounts claimed in attorney’s fee petition requests. However, the next case illustrates
Recent Case Illustrates the Right Way to Handle A Dispute in Segments and Highlights Good Provisions to Have in Retainer Agreement In Fitzgerald Abbott & Beardsley LLP v. Miller, Case No. A118762 (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 31, 2008) (unpublished), Former Client hired Attorneys to resolve a dispute with Client’s neighbors
Fifth District Drops Some Tantalizing Dicta About The Causal Relationship Necessary to Conclude Disputes “Arise Out of a Contract” for Purposes of Awarding Fees. Although one might think that unpublished decisions only involve mundane issues of legal application, our posts have shown that they frequently confront novel issues or provide dicta
