May 2016

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: $16,880 Fee Recovery Under Lease Dispute Reversed Because Tortious Fraud Was Not “On The Contract”

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Neither Section 1717 Nor CCP § 1021 Permitted Fee Recovery.       In Ruballos v. Ruballos, Case No. B268343 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 26, 2016) (unpublished), a lease non-signatory prevailed in a nasty lease dispute, based on a fraud-based controversy.  The lower court awarded $16,880 in attorney’s fees based on a contractual fees clause.

Prevailing Party: Party Obtaining $177,319.46 In Damages, Not On All Claims, Still Prevailed For Purposes Of Fees Clause Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party

  $164,374.50 In Fee Recovery Sustained On Appeal.       1884.  Library of Congress.      In California Hand Center, Inc. v. Katzen, Case Nos. B259520/B261646 (2d Dist., div. 1 May 26, 2016) (unpublished), a court-appointed awarded plaintiff $227,319.46 in damages (on appeal, reduced to $177,319.46) under a contract with a fees clause.  The referee also awarded

Class Actions: Illinois Appellate Court In Telephone Consumer Protection Act Class Actions Suggests Fee Recoveries Will Have To Await Determination Of Benefits Received By Class

Cases: Class Actions

  Some Commentators Suggest This Is Death Knell Of TCPA Class Actions.     In the last few years, “junk fax” class actions apparently have proliferated under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  This proliferation has irked the Illinois Court of Appeal, First Judicial District, prompting some reasoning which class action lawyers likely will deplore in

Arbitration: Baxter v. Bock Decision Now Partially Published

Cases: Arbitration

  Dealt With MFAA Arbitrator Disclosure Issues, Mainly.     On May 20, 2016, we posted on the unpublished decision of Baxter v. Bock, a mandatory fee arbitration case which decided that an arbitrator auditing fee bills did not have to disclose this work in the arbitration given that he represented both plaintiffs and defendants in

Employment: SCOTUS Rules That No Merits Determination Required For Defendant To Be Declared Prevailing Party In EEOC Employment Discrimination Action

Cases: Employment

  Laughing Matter? –  Fee Award Remanded For Further Factual Determinations Regarding Frivolousness.     In CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375 (U.S. Supreme Court May 19, 2016), SCOTUS was reviewing a fee award in favor of a defendant and against the EEOC in an amount of over $4 million after a district judge

Scroll to Top