Year in Review 2013 – Part I

Yearly Roundup: Mike & Marc’s Top 20-Plus Decisions In 2013

Roundup for tourists.  Fort Worth, Texas.  Carol M. Highsmith Collection.  Library of Congress. 2012.  Library of Congress.

Part 1 of 2 – M & M’s Top 2013 Fee/Costs Decisions.

     It is that time of year where we provide our top fee/costs published decisions (with two exceptions, a couple of unpublished state opinions) for the 2013 year. The exceptions relate to two unpublished state appellate cases which have been accepted for review by the California Supreme Court. In fact, a couple of more published decisions in our list also were accepted for review. Nothing should be read from the order of presentation, because we are not ranking in terms of overall importance, simply that they are germane on the interesting issues we posted on during 2013.

     21. Cates v. John Chiang, as State Controller, 213 Cal.App.4^th 791 (Feb. 7, 2013) [4^th Dist., Div. 1; authored by Haller, Acting P.J.]: Reconstructed time in fee submission papers only goes to weight of proof; multipliers rarely deserved for “fees on fees” work. [Discussed in our February 9, 2013 post.]

     20. Lucky Unified Properties Investments, Inc. v. Lee, 213 Cal.App.4^th 635 (Feb. 4, 2013) [1^st Dist., Div. 5; authored by Bruiniers. J.]: Interest runs on post-judgment fees/costs awards from the date fees are fixed. [Discussed in our February 6, 2013 post.]

     19. Windsor Pacific LLC v. Samwood Co., Inc., 213 Cal.App.4^th 263 (Jan. 30, 2013) [2d Dist., Div. 3; authored by Croskey, J.]: Action for Civil Code section 1717 fee recovery purposes encompasses a defense in an answer triggering fee recovery rather than just a complaint. [Discussed in our February 2, 2013 post.]

     18. In re Marriage of Turkanis and Price, 213 Cal.App.4^th 332 (Jan. 30, 2013) [2d Dist., Div. 8; authored by Flier, J.]: Non-encumbering spouse can move to expunge an attorney’s family law attorney’s real property lien and a Borson fee award can be offset for unreasonable litigation conduct. [Discussed in our February 2, 2013 post.]

     17. Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, 715 F.3d 1173 (9^th Cir. Apr. 22, 2013) [authored by Gould, J.; concurrence by Hadon, J.]: Class representatives’ conflict of interest in getting incentive awards to support settlement has to be weighed in determining class counsel’s fee award. [Discussed in our April 27, 2013 post.]

     16. Conservatorship of McQueen, Case No. A134337 (Feb. 7, 2013 unpublished) [lst Dist., Div. 4; authored by Ruvolo, P.J., rev. granted, No. S209376 (Cal. Supreme Court May 15, 2013)]: DCA reversed motion for post-judgment attorney’s fees and costs. Issue presented for review: Is a trial court award of statutorily-mandated fees and costs incurred on appeal subject to Enforcement of Judgment statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040 et seq.) if the statute underlying the award is the Elder Abuse Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15200 et seq.). [Discussed in our March 15, 2013 post.]

     15. McDaniel v. Asuncion, 214 Cal.App.4^th 1201 (Mar. 27, 2013) [5^th Dist.; authored by Levy, Acting P.J.]: Joint offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 made to multiple plaintiffs by a single defendant was valid. [Discussed in our April 5, 2013 post.]

     14. Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4^th 310 (May 14, 2013) [2d Dist., Div. 4; authored by Suzukawa, J.]: Post-dismissal fees/costs proceeding can proceed under settlement agreement assuming fee entitlement can be demonstrated by moving/claiming party. [Discussed in our May 16, 2013 post.]

     13. Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp, Case No. B235015 (May 15, 2013 unpublished) [2d Dist., Div. 4; authored by Suzukawa, J., rev. granted, No. S211596 (Cal. Supreme Court June 25, 2013)]: Whether an appellate court erred in reversing an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing homeowner against a homeowners’ association under Civil Code section 1354 because no common interest development interest was involved and there was improper ratification of governing HOA documents. [Discussed in our May 16, 2013 post.]

     12. Martinez v. Brownco Constr. Co., Inc., 56 Cal.4^th 1014 (June 10, 2013) [Cal. Supreme Court; authored by Baxter, J.]: Where a plaintiff serves two Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers and defendant fails to obtain a judgment more favorable than either offer, recoverability of expert witness fees as costs incurred runs from the date of the first offer, but in the trial court’s discretion to prevent gamesmanship. [Discussed in our June 10, 2013 post.]

     11. Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., 218 Cal.App.4^th 73 (July 23, 2013) [4^th Dist., Div. 2; authored by Richli, J., rev. granted, No. S213545 (Cal. Supreme Court Oct. 30, 2013)]: Routine costs can be assessed against losing civil rights plaintiff without showing plaintiff’s suit was frivolous/unreasonable/groundless in nature. [Discussed in our July 24, 2013 post.]

     For Part 2 of 2 – M & M’s Top 2013 Fee/Costs Decisions, click here.