A man was falsely accused of sexual activity and held to answer after a preliminary hearing during which a fabricated lab report was used as evidence. After the charges were dismissed, the man sued a City and a police officer for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Immediately prior to trial, the parties settled the dispute and the man sought attorney fees in the amount of $1,448,397 based on 2,249.9 hours of compensable attorney hours and costs of $72,255. The trial court awarded $436,807.50 for fees and $23,935.07 for costs.
Saying “No, You Can’t Have The Documents,” Can Be Costly.
A shipping association requested documents from the port agent for a few California ports under the Public Records Act [Government Code section 6250, et seq.]. A port agent refused and the association filed a Writ of Mandate, which the trial court granted and which order the Court of Appeal declined to overturn.
“The Primary Purpose . . . Was To Ruin [Former Husband And His New Wife] Financially.” The Trial Court.
The trial court ordered a former wife to pay her former husband $151,967 and his new wife $124,352 both as sanctions under Family Code section 271 and to pay for their attorney fees pursuant to Family Code section 2030. The trial court described the proceedings as a “morass of litigation, the primary purpose of which was to ruin [former husband and his new wife] financially.”
Attorney Fees In Small Claims Appeal.
While lawyers usually cannot represent parties in a small claims action, lawyers may represent parties in small claims appeals. (Civ.Proc. § 116.530.) Code of Civil Procedure section 116.780(c) provides for an award of fees up to $150 and up to $1,000 if appeal was without substantial merit and not based on good faith. In the […]
Previously We Reported: Legal Malpractice Statute Of Limitations.
Plaintiff hired a lawyer to represent her in litigation. After settlement, plaintiff sought a refund of unearned attorney fees she had advanced as the lawyer had written her a letter stating she had a credit balance of $46,321.85 and the invoice so reflected. When the refund was not forthcoming, she hired another lawyer to try […]
Previously we reported: Jury Awarded Lawyer $5,000/Hour For Fees.
An attorney, who represented a client in two divorce cases and a related Marvin action [Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106]] without a statutorily required written hourly or contingency fee agreement, sued his client for the reasonable value of the services he rendered in the three cases. The jury, […]
Out-Of-State Pro Hac Vice Class Action Lawyer Denied Fees.
In a class action involving a retailer’s practice of requesting personal information from consumers during credit card transactions, the settlement agreement between the parties provided the retailer would not oppose class counsel’s application for court approval of attorney fees and costs in the amount of $210,000 and payment to plaintiff of an incentive award in […]
California Supreme Court Rules On Costs/Attorney Fee Statutory Discrepancies In FEHA Cases.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b) guarantees prevailing parties in civil litigation awards of the costs expended in the litigation, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 requires the costs be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b) provides that in Fair Employment and Housing Act [FEHA; Government […]
Probate Court Refused To Honor Lien For Attorney Fees After Client’s Death.
An underlying action involved a claim to trust funds; that action was settled, and the settlement was approved by the probate court. But then the underlying plaintiff died too. The plaintiff in the present action was the lawyer for the underlying plaintiff. The lawyer had negotiated the settlement on behalf of the client who later died. […]
“It Ain’t Over Till The Fat Lady Sings.” [Maybe Said By Yogi Berra].
In an action involving a business dispute, one of the causes of action alleged breach of contract, and the contract involved contained a prevailing party attorney fee provision. The trial court dismissed the action based on a forum selection provision, and the plaintiff filed the action in another State. In the dismissed California action, defendant […]
- Next Page »