Bolgar v. Glen Donald Apartments, Inc., Case No. B241636 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 26, 2013) (Unpublished).
Although challenging a $71,934.65 fee award as an abuse of discretion, appellant did not go very far based on an inadequate record. None of the fee motion papers were included on appeal, so that the appellate court presumed adequate support in favor of the trial court’s ruling--that simple and in line with appellate tenets.
Insurance Co. of the West v. Engineered Systems & Construction, Inc., Case No. D059661 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 26, 2013) (Unpublished).
Problem here was that surety was granted a summary judgment based on the theory that $250,000 was a reasonable settlement (even though factual issues were presented by proof below), compounded by the trial court allowing fees to be considered via a postjudgment cost proceeding rather than being presented as damages during the trial. However, surety somewhat caught a break here--because the summary judgment was reversed, it had another chance to prove fees as damages at trial.
Kenne v. Stennis, Case No. B221752 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2013) (Unpublished).
In a convoluted battle between former attorneys and clients (what else is usually involved?), an heir that could have been liable for his relative’s attorneys fees was found to have been a party to mandatory fee arbitration and ultimately prevailed. Prevailing party entitled to fees and costs? You betcha, Business and Professions Code section 6204(d) so entitled the fee award to the heir, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a much reduced request to the prevailing party.
City of Hope Nat’l Med. Center v. PacifiCare of Cal., CAse No. B232591 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 27, 2013) (Unpublished).
Defendant won a summary judgment and then garnered about $271,000 in attorney’s fees (out of a requested $325,000) based on a contractual fees clause. Plaintiff said, unfair, you did not move for fees timely under CRC 3.1702, although it did file a timely costs memorandum. However, good cause was presented for extending the fee motion proceeding based on the unexpected illness of counsel’s mother and technological complications at the attorney’s office.
Faris v. Cingular Wireless LLC, Case No. G045602 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 27, 2013) (Unpublished).
In this case involving claims for expenses incurred under Labor Code section 2802 indemnify provisions, the appellate court held that a party cannot get time and costs for litigating these type of indemnity claims, much like the Trope v. Katz rule applicable to in pro per litigants under Civil Code section 1717. This resulted in a $65,743 reduction of costs to a prevailing litigant, in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Moore.