William M. (Mike) Hensley is of counsel in the Santa Ana office of Frost Brown Todd LLP, and a member of the Firm’s Appellate/Business and Commercial Litigation/Real Estate practice groups. He has extensive experience in bench and jury trials, binding arbitrations, judicial references, mediations, and appellate work in state and federal courts throughout California. Mr. Hensley also […]
Just Because Some Work Was Done By An Attorney Not Licensed In California Doesn't Necessarily Mean The Arbitration Agreement Or The Fee Agreement Is Unenforceable. Plaintiff Mark Brawerman sued Loeb & Loeb, arguing the law firm failed to protect his interests in negotiating with the venture capital firm Wasserstein & Co., resulting in the
Because Malicious Prosecution Cause of Action Can't Be Based On MFAA Arbitration, Defendant's Anti-SLAPP Motion Succeeds. The California Court of Appeal holds that a malicious prosecution cause of action cannot rest on a mandatory fee arbitration act (MFAA) arbitration. Dorit v. Noe, A157433 (1/3 5/26/20) (Brown, Pollak, Tucher). As a result, the defendant/appellant's
Plaintiff’s Work In First Action – Dismissed On The Grounds Of Mootness – Was Necessary To Establish Fee Claim At Trial And On Appeal After Win Of Essentially Identical Second Action In Point San Pedro Road Coalition v. County of Marin, Case No. A152144 (1st Dist., Div. 3 March 6, 2019), Defendant County
The Basis For Affirmance: Fee Was Too Big A Bite. In Purifoy v. Howell, Case No. A144262 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 18, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiffs’ law firm appealed a $428,142.50 fee award under CCP § 1021.5. Plaintiffs had won a dog impoundment issue where Saturday should not have been counted as a business
Implication Of Shared Representation Did Not Work On Mediation Conditions Precedent Requirement. In most CAR Form Residential Sale/Purchase Agreements, parties must attempt to mediate in order to recover attorney’s fees. This provision is strictly interpreted, as enunciated in Frei v. Davey, 124 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1512 (2004.) However, there are limits, as Toranji v. Kim,
Void Or Voidable? In the last couple of days, the appellate courts have grappled with when attorney’s fees are awardable under Civil Code section 1717 when a contract is declared to be void (whether illegal or under another statutory provision). For example, see our December 14, 2017 post on the unpublished decision by the
Narrow Public Benefit Exemption In CCP § 425.17(b) Did Not Apply. In Solomon v. Desert Healthcare Dist., Case Nos. E065066/E065684 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 8, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge awarded the successful SLAPP-ing defendant $32,750 in attorney’s fees as against the losing plaintiff. On appeal, plaintiff claimed that his suit fell within
However, Matter Remanded To See If Fees Justified Under Catalyst Theory. In The Kennedy Commission v. City of Huntington Beach, Case No. E066605 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 31, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a writ of mandate preventing the City of Huntington Beach from implementing its amended Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, but that
Same Discretion To Deny Fees Entirely Is The Law In California State Court System Two district judges from the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently denied completely two substantial attorney’s fees requests based primarily on their perceptions the requests were inflated and/or inadequately documented for purposes of evaluating reasonableness of the requests. U.S. District
