April 2009

SLAPP and Fee Substantiation: Itemized Billing Statements/Evidence About Reasonableness Of Hourly Rate And Hours Expended Not Required In Fee Proceedings

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Sufficient Substantiation in Attorney Declaration Attesting to Actual Number of Hours Worked and Attorney’s Billing Rate.      Many practitioners might think that itemized billing statements and evidence on reasonableness of rates/hours expended are essentials in a fee petition proceeding. Although highly advisable, the next case reinforces that such detailed substantiation

ADA: Reversal Of Lawsuit Based On Lack Of Standing Requires Vacating Of Monetary Sanctions

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Sanctions Order.      In an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) case, a district judge dismissed a lawsuit based on plaintiff’s lack of standing and imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel for bringing a frivolous case. The Ninth Circuit reversed the standing determination, which also meant that the sanctions

FEHA: $1,059,350.60 Fee Award, Based on 1.5 Multiplier, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Use of Multiplier Appropriate Even Where Substantial Punitive Damages Also Were Awarded.      Bimbo Bakeries, known for selling such brands of Orowheat and Entemann’s, suffered an adverse jury verdict based on plaintiff’s complaint for wrongful termination, gender and pregnancy discrimination, and violation of related California statutes. The jury awarded plaintiff $340,700 in compensatory damages and

Requests For Admission: Denial Of Seven Key Admissions Justified $32,400 Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Requests for Admission

Fourth District, Division 2 Affirms Fee Award, Even Though $182,469.75 In Fees Were Requested.      Under our category “Requests for Admissions,” we have surveyed cases where courts have granted or refused substantial attorney’s fees award to litigants claiming that they had to prove facts that were unreasonably denied with respect to pretrial discovery requests for

Private Attorney General Statute: CEQA Petitioner Denied Fee Award Because Cost Of Litigation Did Not Transcend Personal Stake In Litigation

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Second District, Division 6 Upholds Fee Denial Under CCP Section 1021.5.      Under our category “Private Attorney General Statute,” we have examined the requirements—more stringent than one might assume—for awarding prevailing litigants attorney’s fees under California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5). There are many elements to satisfy, including establishment that

SLAPP Two-Fer: Fees Go POOF! Because No Amended Complaint On File And HOA Director Stung With Fees After Losing SLAPP Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: SLAPP

Second District, Division 7 Issues Two Unpublished Opinions on SLAPP.      In our category “SLAPP,” we have explored cases where defendants have been victorious in winning mandatory attorney’s fees awards after prevailing in anti-SLAPP motions. The statutory basis for such fee entitlement is Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). Division 7 of the Second District

Costs Memorandum Following Voluntary Dismissal: Court Of Appeal Determines No Proposed Judgment Needs To Be Additionally Filed

Cases: Costs, Cases: Discovery

First District, Division 3 Disagrees With Weil & Brown Treatise Commentary.      After plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her action, two defendants timely filed cost memoranda, but did not submit proposed judgments in addition to the memoranda. Plaintiff argued that the failure to submit these extra proposed judgments barred recovery of costs based primarily on a commentary

Fee-Sharing Agreement: Defendant Clients Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Where No Fee Entitlement in Fee-Sharing Agreement

Cases: Referral Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Fees Clause in Contingency Agreement Was Inconsequential.      Earlier, in our September 21, 2008 post, we reported on Strong v. Beydoun, 166 Cal.App.4th 1398 (2008), where defendant clients owed no unjust enrichment recovery to an attorney who failed to obtain clients’ signatures to a fee-sharing agreement with clients’ other counsel.

Scroll to Top