Part 2 of 2: Second Ten Grouping—Nos. 1-10.
We already gave you our top 11-20 decisions previously this month.
As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of the decision. Rather, we try to survey decisions of interest in different areas of the substantive law based on all the decisions we have examined during 2009.
Without further ado, here we go for nos. 1-10. Happy New Year.
10. Christensen v. Stevedoring Services of America, 557 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. Mar.
2, 2009) and Van Skike v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs, 557 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2009)
Author: Chief U.S. Dist. Judge Roll, By Designation
Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act attorneys entitled to higher attorney’s fees under broader “prevailing market” test in venue fora rather than just having fees keyed to LHWCA past awards (which have been generally lower in amount).
(See our March 5, 2009 post on this decision.)
9. Peak-Las Positas Partners v. Bollag, 172 Cal.App.4th 101 (2d Dist., Div. 6
Mar. 16, 2009)
Author: Presiding Justice Gilbert
Aggressive/tenacious litigation posturing is a factor to be weighed when awarding fees under Civil Code section 1717.
(See our March 16, 2009 post on this decision.)
8. Silver Creek, LLC v. Blackrock Realty Advisors, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 1533
(4th Dist., Div. 1 May 20, 2009)
Author: Justice McIntyre
Scoreboard “tie” approach to deciding Civil Code section 1717 “prevailing party” status rejected, with courts needing to determine if either side won their true litigation objectives for purposes of determining which party prevailed.
(See our May 21, 2009 post on this decision.)
7. Hyde v. Midland Credit Mgt., Inc., 567 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. June 9, 2009)
Author: Circuit Judge Fletcher
Attorney’s fees for “bad faith” actions cannot be assessed against plaintiff’s attorneys in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases.
(See our June 10, 2009 post on this decision.)
6. Wood v. Santa Monica Escrow Co., 176 Cal.App.4th 802 (2d Dist., Div. 6
Aug. 13, 2009)
Author: Presiding Justice Gilbert
Civil Code section 1717 attorney’s fees are only awardable to the overall winner in the litigation, not just the winner of a discrete attorney’s fees proceeding in the case.
(See our August 14, 2009 post on this decision.)
5. Barrientos v. 1801-182 Morton LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2009)
Author: Circuit Judge Wardlaw
Party winning a preemption issue is entitled to fee award under California Civil Code section 1717.
(See our October 10, 2009 post on this decision.)
4. One Star, Inc. v. Staar Surgical Co., 2009 WL 4193643 (2d Dist., Div. 4
Nov. 30, 2009)
Author: Justice Suzukawa
Revocation of second Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer means that the first, nonwithdrawn 998 offer is the measuring stick for an award of costs and fees to prevailing party vis-à-vis the ultimate judgment.
(See our December 1, 2009 post on this decision.)
3. Flir Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, 174 Cal.App.4th 1270 (2d Dist., Div. 6
June 15, 2009)
Author: Justice Yegan
Fees and costs can be awarded to a prevailing party in a bad faith trade secret misappropriation case even though the losing party won an earlier denial of a summary judgment motion.
(See our June 16, 2009 post on this decision.)
2. Gilman v. Dalby, 176 Cal.App.4th 606 (3d Dist. Aug. 10, 2009)
Author: Justice Scotland
Attorney’s liens in personal injury actions have priority over previously-filed medical liens even where plaintiff’s attorney had awareness of the prior medical lien.
(See our August 13, 2009 post on this decision.)
1. Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, 45 Cal.4th 557 (Cal.
Supreme Ct. Jan. 26, 2009)
Author: Justice Moreno
Predispute provision in attorney retainer agreement, which specifies binding arbitration for fee/costs disputes, is enforceable after Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) requirements are exhausted.
(See our January 26, 2009 post on this decision.)
BLOG UNDERVIEW—We used “fora” rather than “forums.” There is a big controversy on which word to use, so we simply go with our gut—even though some Internet commentators prefer use of the word “forums.” Guess we better don our togas!