Wrapping It Up: M & M’s Top 25 Attorney’s Fees Decisions For 2011
Here is the rounding out of our Top 25 Attorney’s Fee Decisions for 2011.
12. Rogel v. Lynwood Revelopment Agency, 194 Cal.App.4th 1319 (2011) [2d Dist., Div. 8]; author–Presiding Justice Bigelow: Lodestar for winning litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 cannot be cut solely because losing governmental defendant could have better used adverse fee award payout to fund ongoing governmental obligations. [Discussed in our May 3, 2011 post.]
11. Diamond Heights Village Assn. v. Financial Freedom Services Funding Corp., 196 Cal.App.4th 290 (2011) [1st Dist., Div. 4]; author–Justice Sepulveda: Rejecting “practical liability” test for award of attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 as being too speculative. [Discussed in our June 9, 2011 post.]
10. Fox v. Vice, 131 S.Ct. 2205 (2011) [U.S. Supreme Ct.]; author–Justice Kagan: “But for” test applies when determining whether a prevailing defendant should recover fees in a plaintiff’s civil rights suit involving both frivolous and nonfrivolous claims, rejecting the district court’s use of a “focus” test. [Discussed in our June 8, 2011 post.]
9. In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) [9th Cir.]; author–Senior Circuit Judge Hawkins: Ninth Circuit provides roadmap for recovery of attorney’s fees in mass tort products liability class action, discussing both lodestar and percentage of recovery methods as well as disproportionality between fees award and benefit for the class. [Discussed in our August 25, 2011 post.]
8. Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow, 199 Cal.App.4th 676 (2011) [2d Dist., Div. 3]; author–Justice Croskey: Former Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 standards do apply in determining if losing defendant’s SLAPP motion was frivolous; untimely SLAPP motion did not automatically mean the motion was frivolous in nature. [Discussed in our September 28, 2011 post.]
7. CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado, 200 Cal.App.4th 158 (2011) [5th Dist.]; author–Justice Levy: Civil Code section 1717 fee recovery is available where one discrete claim happens to be adjudicated in plaintiff’s favor even though there was a dismissal of a separate partial claim not giving rise to fee entitlement. [Discussed in our posts of February 19, 2011 and October 28, 2011.]
6. Nicholas Laboratories, LLC v. Chen, 199 Cal.App.4th 1240 (2011) [4th Dist., Div. 3]; author–Justice Ikola: Labor Code section 2802’s indemnification provision does not require an employer to reimburse an employee for attorney’s fees in successfully defensing employer (versus third-party) claims. [Discussed in our October 13, 2011 post.]
5. Conservatorship of Estate of Cornelius, 200 Cal.App.4th 1198 (2011) [1st Dist., Div. 4]; author–Justice Sepulveda: Temporary conservator’s attorney was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Probate Code sections 2641(a) and 2642(a) even if no permanent conservator was ever appointed. [Discussed in our November 15, 2011 post.]
4. Marriage of Guilardi, 200 Cal.App.4th 770 (2011) [6th Dist.]; author–Justice Elia: Marital settlement agreement’s attorney’s fees clause trumped needs-based family law fee request. [Discussed in our November 8, 2011 post.]
3. Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., 52 Cal.4th 1018 (2011) [Cal. Supreme Court]; author–Justice Corrigan: Clarifies the scope of Adoption of Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945 (2008) on the “public interest” element of California’s private attorney general statute, Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5. [Discussed in our November 1, 2011 post.]
2. Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc., 2011 WL 5925228 (2011) [4th Dist., Div. 3]; author–Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth: Contains a sure-to-be quoted discussion of when appellate sanctions are warranted for lying to the court and showing a general lack of civility during appellate proceedings, complete with Don Quixote literary references. [Discussed in our December 3, 2011 post.]
1. Dzwonkowski v. Spinella, 200 Cal.App.4th 930 (2011) [4th Dist., Div. 3]; author–Justice Fybel: Truly independent “of counsel” attorney arrangement, involving an “of counsel” having separate offices and insisting on the client attorney being independently responsible for “of cou
nsel’s” fees, did not fall within the Trope limitation. The case is discussed in our October 28, 2011 post; it was certified for partial publication on Novemer 19, 2011.
Year in Review – 2011 [Part 1 of 2]