Year in Review 2013 – Part II

 

Yearly Roundup: Mike and 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 2 of 2 – M & M’s Top 2013 Fee/Costs Decisions.

     Here is the remainder of our top 2013 fee/costs decisions. However, if something comes out in the next few days before we all ring in the New Year, we will post a Part 2.A to our top list.

     10. Mon Chong Loong Trading Corp. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.4^th 87 (July 23, 2013) [2d Dist., Div. 3; authored by Croskey, J.]: Voluntary dismissal without prejudice confers discretion on trial court to shift expert witness fees to dismissing party. [Discussed in our July 24, 2013 post.]

     9. Ellis v. Toshiba America Information System, Inc., 218 Cal.App.4^th 853 (Aug. 7, 2013) [2d Dist., Div. 1; authored by Johnson, J.]: Legal assistants/paralegals not meeting Business and Professions Code certification requirements can be compensated in fee proceedings. [Discussed in our August 8, 2013 post.]

     8. Swanson v. State Farm Gen. Ins., 219 Cal.App.4^th 1153 (Sept. 23, 2013) [2d Dist., Div. 7; authored by Segal, J., L.A. County Super. Ct. judge sitting by assignment]: An insurer withdrawing all reservations of rights and coverage defenses does not have to continue paying Cumis counsel after the withdrawal decisions are communicated. [Discussed in our September 28, 2013 post.]

     7. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1086 (9^th Cir. Sept. 9, 2013) [authored by Smith, N. Randy, J.]: Opposing counsel’s hours are useful in determining fee reasonableness; district court must explain fee lodestar request cuts over 10%; judicial intuit alone cannot be used to gauge reasonable hourly rates; previous fee awards and attorney tables of experience did not have to be blindly credited by district judge. [Discussed in our September 15, 2013 post.]

     6. Brown Bark III, L.P. v. Haver, 219 Cal.App.4^th 809 (Sept. 13, 2013) [4^th Dist., Div. 3; authored by Aronson, J.]: Continuation successor liability equitable doctrine winner is entitled to prevailing party fees under Civil Code section 1717 on contractually-based claims, disagreeing with earlier unpublished federal decision to the contrary. [Discussed in our September 2 and September 15, 2013 posts.]

     5. Rouland v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co., 220 Cal.App.4^th 280 (Oct. 7, 2013) [4^th Dist., Div. 3; authored by Aronson, J.]: No magic “acceptance” language required to make Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer valid. [Discussed in our October 15, 2013 post.]

     4. Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4^th 1270 (Oct. 29, 2013) [2d Dist., Div. 4; authored by Manella, J.]: Code of Civil Procedure section 998 expert fee ruling must be separately appealed and is not embraced in the prior original judgment. [Discussed in our November 4, 2013 post.]

     3. Campbell v. Astrue, __ F.3d __, Case No. 11-55486 (9^th Cir. Nov. 26, 2013) [Bea & Smith, N. Randy, JJ., majority opinion; Wardlaw, J., dissenting]: 2-1 decision finding government’s position in an earlier reversal of a social security disability denial was substantially justified under the Equal Access to Justice Act fee-shifting provision. Majority and dissenting Circuit Judges disagreed over the application of Meier v. Covin, 727 F.3d 867 (9^th Cir. 2013). [Campbell discussed in our November 26, 2013 post and Meier discussed in our July 23, 2013 post.]

     2. Optimal Markets, Inc. v. Salant, __ Cal.App.4^th __, 2013 WL 6180246 (Case No. H038571 Nov. 26, 2013) [6^th Dist.; authored by Marquez, J.]: Counsel cannot be punished under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 applicable to court proceedings when sanctions were based on arbitration activities. [Discussed in our November 29, 2013 post.]

     1. Barry v. State Bar of California, 218 Cal.App.4^th 1435 (Aug. 21, 2013) [2d Dist., Div. 2; authored by Chavez, J., rev. granted, No. S214058 (Cal. Supreme Court Nov. 27, 2013)]: Issue for review is whether the trial court had authority to award mandatory SLAPP fees under the circumstances where a SLAPP grant fee order was reversed by an appellate court on the ground that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. [Discussed in our August 22, 2013 post.]

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