Based on reader feedback, here is a summary of cases involving fees/costs issues that are currently pending for review before the California Supreme Court:
1. SLAPP—Barry v. State Bar of California, No. S214058 (formerly published at 218 Cal.App.4th 1435): if the trial court grants a SLAPP motion on the ground that the plaintiff has no probability of prevailing on the merits because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, does the court have the authority to award the prevailing party fees mandated by CCP section 425.16(c)? Appellate court said no, reversing a contrary lower court fee grant. [Reviewed in our August 22, 2013 post.]
2. JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT/CONSUMER STATUTES—Conservatorship of McQueen, No. S209376 (unpublished appellate decision): is a trial court award of statutorily-mandated fees and costs incurred on appeal subject to the Enforcement of Judgments Statutes if the statutory authority underlying the award is the Elder Abuse Act? Appellate court reversed a lower court fee/costs grant order. [Reviewed in our February 8, 2013 post.]
3. SECTION 1717—Kandy Kiss of California, Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., No. S206354 (formerly published at 209 Cal.App.4th 604): is a party who obtains the dismissal of a contract action entirely on procedural grounds entitled to an award of fees under Civil Code section 1717 as the prevailing party on a contract? Appellate court affirmed a trial order saying yes. [Reviewed in our September 22, 2012 post.]
4. INSURANCE—Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., No. S213873 (formerly published at 219 Cal.App.4th 188): is an award of attorney's fees under Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985) properly included as compensatory damages where the fees are awarded by the jury, but excluded from compensatory damages when they are awarded by the trial court after the jury has rendered its verdict? Appellate court concluded Brandt fees were not included in compensatory verdict for purposes of further calculations.
5. HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS—Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp, No. S211596 (unpublished appellate decision): is a prevailing party homeowner entitled to attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1354 in an action by the HOA to enforce its governing documents as those of a common interest development when the homeowner prevailed because it was later determined that the subdivision was not a CID and its governing documents had not been properly reenacted? Appellate court reversed a fee grant to homeowner. [UPDATE: Attorney Keith Turner, who is representing Petitioner (homeowner) in this one, informed us that the reply brief was filed recently so the matter awaits the supreme court's work-up and setting of oral argument. See our May 16, 2013 post on original DCA opinion.]
6. CIVIL RIGHTS (FEHA)—Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., No. S213100 (formerly published at 218 Cal.App.4th 73): is a prevailing defendant in a FEHA action required to show that the plaintiff's claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless in order to recover ordinary litigation costs? Appellate court said no, affirming a lower court's costs award to the defense. [See our July 24, 2013 post.]
Comments