Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and DisputeSuite.com Cases Are The Ones.
We can now report that a couple of pending attorney’s fees cases before the California Supreme Court likely will be decided within the next few months. Here are the issues and status updates:
1. PRIVILEGED NATURE OF FEE INVOICES IN CPRA CASES -- Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court, S226645—2d Dist., Div. 3, 235 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Aldrich, J.). Here is the framed issue by the state supreme court: “Are invoices for legal services sent to the County of Los Angeles by outside counsel within the scope of the attorney-client privilege and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, even with all references to attorney opinions, advice and similar information redacted?” This case was argued and submitted on October 6, 2016.
2. CIVIL CODE SECTION 1717 PREVAILING PARTY FOR NON-MERITS DETERMINATION -- DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, S226652—2d Dist., Div. 2, 235 Cal.App.4th 1261 (Ashmann-Gerst, J.). Here is the issue: “Were defendants entitled to an award of attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 as the prevailing parties in an action on contract when they obtained the dismissal of the action on procedural grounds pursuant to a Florida forum selection clause?” This primarily pits contrary results by the 4th Dist., Div. 3 in the Profit Concepts and PNEC Corp. decisions.
An order issued from the California Supreme Court asking the interested parties to provide any conflicting dates, given the case will be set for oral argument in the next few months.BLOG OBSERVATION—For state appellate practitioners, it looks like the California Supreme Court now sends a scheduling letter to counsel for parties/amici asking for any conflicts after announcing an intention to set the matter for oral argument within a few months. That happened in the second case above, as reflected on the DisputeSuite.com docket.
Comments