Year End Wrap-Up: Mike and Marc’s Top 20 Decisions in 2019
Supreme Court Room (Room 129), California State Library & Courts Building, 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, Sacramento County, CA
Part 2 of 2—Prevailing Party, Sanctions, and CCP § 998 Decisions Predominated In Our Last Top 20 Decisions.
Here we go with the last Top 20 decisions to round out our 2019 Top 20 list.
10. PREVAILING PARTY. Cole v. Hammond, 37 Cal.App.5th 912 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 24, 2019)—authored by Justice Collins; discussed in our July 26, 2019 post: Defendants winning mandatory dismissal of an action based on the case not being tried within 5 years of commencement were prevailing parties under contractual fees clause.
9. PREVAILING PARTY/SANCTIONS/SECTION 1717. De la Carriere v. Greene, 39 Cal.App.5th 270 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 28, 2019)—authored by Presiding Justice Bigelow; discussed in our Aug. 28, 2019 post: Plaintiff’s work on post-judgment motions to obtain dismissal of cross-appeal by defendant prevailing at trial were not allowable under Civil Code § 1717 because defendant was prevailing party in the overall matter, requiring reversal of lower court’s fee award to plaintiff; plaintiff’s alternative CCP § 128.5 ground for affirmance did not work because lower court did not rule on this ground and only an appellate court can award sanctions for frivolous appellate work.
8. SANCTIONS. Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb and Taeb, 39 Cal.App.5th 124 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 26, 2019)—authored by Justice Banke; discussed in our Aug. 26, 2019 post: Recent amendments to CCP § 128.5 establish that subjective bad faith is required under § 128.5, while only objective bad faith is required under CCP § 128.7.
7. SECTION 998. Hersey v. Vopava, 38 Cal.App.5th 792 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 14, 2019)—authored by Justice Stratton; discussed in our Aug. 15, 2019 post: Rejecting offeree which rejected first and second CCP § 998 offers is entitled to addition of pre-offer fees/costs up through date of second offer when the offeree ultimately prevails at trial, with these pre-offer fees/costs being added to the judgment for purposes of determining who prevailed under section 998.
6. EMPLOYMENT/SECTION 998. Scott v. City of San Diego, 38 Cal.App.5th 228 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 1, 2019)—authored by Justice Guerrero; discussed in our Aug. 2, 2019 post: Based on a legislative amendment effective January 1, 2019, nonfrivolous FEHA actions, even where the defense served a successful CCP § 998 offer, cannot give rise to routine costs recovery against unsuccessful plaintiff employee.
5. FAMILY LAW. Marriage of Bittenson, 41 Cal.App.5th 333 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 22, 2012)—authored by Justice Yegan; discussed in our Oct. 24, 2019 post: Family Code § 2034 establishes that a Family Law Attorney’s Real Property Lien to secure payment of attorney divorce fees is conditional such that a family law judge can revisit the propriety of it and can even expunge or limit the lien later on.
4. POSTJUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT. Highland Springs Conference and Training Center v. City of Banning, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 331, 2019 WL 6208344 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2019)—authored by Presiding Justice Ramirez; discussed in our Nov. 23, 2019 post: Fees/costs incurred in successfully adding judgment debtors to a judgment under CCP § 187, including successful appellate work, should be classified as prejudgment costs not governed by the Enforcement of Judgments Law’s procedures/deadlines.
3. FEE CLAUSE INTERPRETATION/PREVAILING PARTY. Regency Midland Constr., Inc. v. Legendary Structures, Inc., 41 Cal.App.5th 994 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 7, 2019)—authored by Justice Wiley; discussed in our Nov. 8 post: A general contractor prevailed for purposes of a contractual fee award where the lower court upheld contractor’s retention withholding as to subcontractor even though contractor did not win all of its desired relief; just like statutory interpretation, when construing the text of an agreement, “read read read the contract.”
2. CIVIL RIGHTS. Beames v. City of Visalia, 2019 WL 6907528 (5th Dist. Dec. 19, 2019)—authored by Justice Smith; discussed in our Dec. 23, 2019 post: Plaintiff was entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 where a substantial federal civil rights claim was pled and plaintiff prevailed on a factually-related non-civil rights claim having merit.
1. SPECIAL FEE SHIFTING STATUTE. City of Los Angeles v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. Cal., 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 202, 2019 WL 6123675 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 19, 2019)—authored by Justice Stratton; discussed in our Dec. 1, 2019 post: Successful party/intervenor was entitled to fee recovery in a California Public Records Act proceeding and a reverse-CPRA action, agreeing with Pasadena Public Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, 22 Cal.App.5th 147, 157 [reviewed in our April 15, 2018 post].
PENDING CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT REVIEW—ONLY ONE CASE. K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., S241057. (B269864; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC505356.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from an order in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the Court of Appeal lack jurisdiction over an appeal from an order imposing sanctions on an attorney if the notice of appeal is brought in the name of the client rather than in the name of the attorney?