Cases: Undertaking

Eminent Domain/Undertaking:  Trial Judge Has Discretion To Impose Undertaking On Defendant Making A Postjudgment Withdrawal Of An Increased Deposit By Condemning Agency

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: Undertaking

Undertaking Was Prudent Given Condemnor Was Appealing Abandonment Denial Decision, Such That Attorney’s Fees Might Be In Order Down The Line.             Eminent domain and inverse condemnation are boutique practice areas, but we attempt to report on all substantive areas.  Here is a very technical decision relating to postjudgment withdrawal of an increased deposit made […]

Undertaking: Attorney’s Fees/Costs Award Pending For Determination On Appeal Does Not Need To Be Bonded After Satisfaction of Prior Compensatory Parts

Cases: Undertaking

  4/3 DCA Weighs In—Going With Ziello On The Issue, But Inviting Legislative Reform.       Quiles v. Parent, Case No. G054353 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 27, 2017) (published), a by-the-court decision through a panel consisting of Presiding Justice O'Leary, Justice Fybel, and Justice Ikola, considered this question: Does a litigant need to bond

Civil Rights, Costs, Prevailing Party, Undertaking: Plaintiff’s Win Under Patient’s Rights Health And Safety Code Scheme Resulted In Substantial Fee Award, But Other Expert Fee Awards And Need For Appellate Undertaking Rulings Reversed As To Defense

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Undertaking

  Panoply Of Issues Faced In This Decision.       In Lemaire v. Covenant Care California, LLC, Case No. B266493 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 27, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a complaint based on wrongful death, elder abuse, and “patients’ rights” violations under Health and Safety Code section 1430(b) for treatment of her mother in a

Undertaking: Foreign Plaintiffs Not Suing On A Promissory Note With A Fees Clause Did Not Have To Post An Undertaking For Future Fees If The Defense Eventually Prevails

Cases: Undertaking

  Code of Civil Procedure Section 1030 Was Involved.     Tieni v. Biasiolo, Case No. B267697 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 22, 2017) (unpublished) concerned Code of Civil Procedure section 1030, which requires non-resident plaintiffs to post an undertaking for reasonable attorney’s fees to ensure collectability of those fees in the event defendant prevails

Undertaking: Siry Investments Decision Certified For Publication

Cases: Undertaking

  Opinion Deals With “Retroactivity” Of Amended CRC With Respect To Appeal Undertaking Lending Expenses.     On June 19, 2015, we posted on Siry Investments, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, a Second District, Division 2 unpublished opinion considering the retroactivity of an amended CRC relating to appeal undertaking lending expenses.  We can now report that it was

Undertaking: Amended CRC On Recoverability Of Appeal Undertaking Lending Expenses Had No “Retroactivity” Problem In Case Where Remittitur Had Not Yet Issued

Cases: Undertaking

  Appellate Court Rejected That Lending Had To Be Specifically Tied In Initial Purpose To Obtaining Undertaking Expense Moneys.     Effective January 1, 2013, CRC rule 8.278 allows a prevailing party on appeal to recover the costs to obtain a letter of credit or fees/net interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to provide security for

Intellectual Property/Undertaking: District Courts Diverge On Whether To Order Bondings For Costs/Fees Under CCP § 1030 In Patent And Copyright Cases

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Undertaking

  Undertakings Ordered in Copyright Cases, But Denied in Patent Cases.      Charlene M. Morrow and Brian E. Lahti of Fenwick & West LLP have written an interesting article in the October 31, 2014 issue of BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 88 PTCJ 1705.      In this article, they explore how district courts in

Legislation/Undertaking: California Amendments To Deposits In Lieu Of Cash Bonding/Undertaking Requirements Are Chaptered September 9, 2014

Cases: Undertaking

  More Flexibility as to Instruments as Qualifying “In Lieu Of” Cash for Undertaking Purposes.      AB 1856 has been chaptered, amending Code of Civil Procedure sections 995.710, 995.720, 995.740, and 995.760—portions of California’s Bond and Undertaking Law. In essence, it allows casher’s checks and all bonds and notes of the United States or California

Appealability/Undertaking: Appellate Court Grants Supersedeas For Fees Only Award, But Dismisses Subsequent Appeal When Supersedeas Grant Did Not Rule On Costs to Petitioner

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Undertaking

       This next case, Soni v. CH&I Technologies, Inc., Case No. B240173 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 30, 2013) (unpublished), enters into the arcane fray of fees only awards and supersedeas grants. So, here we go.      After observing that this was the third appeal between the parties (hint! hint!), the background for all

Undertaking: Party Successfully Defending Judgment On Appeal Dissolving An Injunction Entitled To Statutorily-Mandated Fees Against Nonpaying Surety

Cases: Undertaking

  CCP § 996.480(a)(2) So Mandates.      In Jovanovic v. Abel, Case No. A131578 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 27, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiffs successfully obtained a preliminary injunction to stop a foreclosure of a multi-unit condominium project by some hard money lenders/investors, but had to post a $90,000 injunction bond as a condition of the

Scroll to Top