No Public Trust Issues Involved, So Joint Request to Reverse Fee Order Granted. In Park Plaza II, Ltd. v. American Bankers Ins. Co., Case No. G049334 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 15, 2015) (unpublished), the appellate court had earlier reversed a trial court’s order dismissing a cross-complaint based on a forum selection clause […]
Brother Prevailed on Key Issue—Continued Possession of Store Space in Downtown Cincinnati. Larry Flynt is back in the news. Through a company named Hustler Cincinnati, he brought a forcible entry and detainer action to evict his brother Jimmy Ray Flynt’s store (Cincinnati Hustler on Elm Street) from space in downtown Cincinnati. Larry lost,
Federal Circuit Vacates Fee-Shifting Sanctions. In AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2013-1056 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 20, 2014) (precedential), the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court fee-shifting sanction against plaintiff AntiCancer, which sanction was imposed as a condition of allowing plaintiff to supplement preliminary infringement contentions. The fee-shifting sanction was for fees and
In a recent post under our “in the news” category, we shared with you a Blackford County, Indiana’s edict that appearing attorneys had to wear socks in his courtroom. Now, we share with a story about a Great Dane who ate socks. Click here for the story. Maybe this fine looking dog could
We would like to thank Tom Basehart, co-contributor Mike’s father-in-law, for clipping newspaper and magazine articles of interest for our blog, which we now synopsize. New York Court of Appeals Comes to Different Result than Jewel v. Boxer. Much like Northern District of California federal judge Charles Breyer did in In re
Although law school applications are down 37% from 2010, an on-line posted article in the AJA Journal indicates no problem for these U.S. law schools, ranked in order of most applications received: 1) Georgetown University, 7,257 applications 2) University of Virginia, 6,048 applications 3) George Washington University (DC), 6,005 applications 4) University of California
$11,457.65 Fee Award Goes POOF! We love the opening and closing in Settle v. State of California (McKiernan), Case No. B249236 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 23, 2014) (published), written by Justice Yegan on behalf of a 3-0 panel. John Vachon, photographer. “Glorified Hamburgers”. Oct. 1938. Library of Congress. The opening
Also, Pretrial Settlement Activity Would Have Been Futile, So Remand to Fix Fees. In Reynolds v. City of Calistoga, Case Nos. A134190/A135501 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 3, 2014) (unpublished), a litigant was denied CCP § 1021.5 fees under the private attorney general statute claiming entitlement as a “catalyst” on one major issue in
Ninth Circuit Splits With Other Circuits on this Issue. Given that we primarily blog on California cases (including those from the Ninth Circuit), we provide an update on a post of May 5, 2014, surveying cases on how a federal Rule 68 offer could or could not moot a consumer (FDCPA) case.
Display, Loyalton, California. 2012. Carol M. Highsmith Collection. Library of Congress.
