Source: http://www.litigationmanagementblog.com/david-j-mcmahon.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 03:37:15
Document Index: 186366280

Matched Legal Cases: ['§425', '§425', '§425', '§ 2018', '§ 2018', '§ 2018', '§ 2018', '§ 1717', '§ 1060', '§ 1988', '§ 1021']

David J. McMahon : Litigation Management & Attorney Fee Analysis Blog
Posted on May 22, 2013 by David J. McMahon
Comments Trackbacks Tags: Appeals, California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700(a)(1), Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a), Nevis Homes LLC v. CW Roofing Inc., five-day extension rule for pleadings, memorandum of costs
Posted on May 20, 2013 by David J. McMahon
By David J. McMahon & Jeevan Subbiah
Comments Trackbacks Tags: Attorney Fees, Complex Environmental Fee Claims, Litigation Management, environmental cleanup
Posted on May 14, 2013 by David J. McMahon
The Plaintiff filed a malicious prosecution suit against a law firm. The case was hotly contested and resulted in years of litigation and multiple appeals. After the contentious litigation, one party (the “Plaintiff”) filed a malicious prosecution complaint. The “Defendant,” a law firm, filed a special motion to strike under California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 in response to the complaint. CCP §425.16 is commonly referred to as the anti‑SLAPP statute. The trial court concluded that the Plaintiff’s complaint had merit and that the Plaintiff would likely prevail. Thus, it denied the law firm’s special motion to strike under CCP §425.16. The trial court also awarded the Plaintiff attorney fees and costs as sanctions concluding that the special motion to strike had been filed for improper purposes.
Comments Trackbacks Tags: Appeals, Attorney Fees, Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky LLP, anti-SLAPP statute
Posted on March 26, 2013 by David J. McMahon
By David McMahon and Brendan Mullan
The Coito decision changed the landscape in California regarding the application of the work production doctrine to witness statements and witness identities. Work product is codified in California under Civil Code §§ 2018.010 et. seq. Absolute work product is afforded to writings and recordings that reflect an “attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research or theories.” Civ. Code § 2018.030(a). Qualified work product protection is afforded to all other work product. Qualified work product is “not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in prejudice.” Civ. Code § 2018.030(b). Now in California, witness statements obtained as a result of interviews conducted by an attorney, or by an attorney’s agent at the attorney’s behest, constitutes work product under Civ. Code § 2018.030. Coito, 54 Cal. 4th at 494. Whether the statements are entitled to absolute or qualified work product is determined on a case by case basis. Id. at 496. The witness statements may be entitled to absolute protection if the attorney resisting discovery can show that disclosure would reveal the attorney’s “impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” Even if the attorney cannot make that preliminary showing, the statements are entitled to qualified work product protection as a matter or law. Id. The statements may be subject to discovery only if the party seeking discovery can show that “denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice him in preparing his claim or will result in an injustice.” Id. To that extent, the Coito decision disapproved prior decisional law set forth in Fellows v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. App. 3d 55 (1980); People v. Williams, 93 Cal. App. 3d 40 (1979); Rodriguez v. McDonald Douglas Corp., 87 Cal. App. 3d 626 (1978); Kadlebach v. Amaral, 31 Cal. App. 3d 814 (1973); Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355 (1961); and Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. App. 4th 214 (1996).
Comments Trackbacks Tags: Appeals, California Civil Code sections 2018.010, Civil Code section 2018.030(a), Civil Code section 2018.030(b), Coito v. Superior Court, Fellows v. Superior Court, Form Interrogatory 12.3, Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, Kadlebach v. Amaral, Litigation Management, Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court, People v. Williams, Rodriguez v. McDonald Douglas Corp., absolute work product , qualified work product Startups - Deferred Payment Models for Legal Fees
Posted on March 7, 2013 by David J. McMahon
Comments Trackbacks Tags: ABA Model Rule 1.7, ABA Model Rule 1.8, Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients, How to Select New Counsel and Manage Legal Fees, Litigation Management, alternative billing, alternative fee arrangement, deferred payment models
Posted on March 4, 2013 by David J. McMahon
Comments Trackbacks Tags: Appeals, Attorney Fees, Padgett v. Loventhal
Posted on February 20, 2013 by David J. McMahon
Comments Trackbacks Tags: Appeals, Attorney Fees, Lucky United Properties Investment Inc. v. Lee, Postjudgment Interest, anti-slapp motions, prejudgment costs
Posted on February 13, 2013 by David J. McMahon
Comments Trackbacks Tags: ADR, Appeals, Attorney Fees, Civil Code sections 1351-1378, Davis‑Stirling Act, Grossman v. Park Fort Washington Association, Prevailing Party Suits, alternative dispute resolution, homeowners association
February 11, 2013 — Prevailing Party Attorney Fee Award Is Granted Based On Successful Affirmative Defense Raised In AnswerFebruary 1, 2013 — Attorney Fee Award to Debtor Is Affirmed Where Creditor's "Reasonable Reliance" Claims Have No MeritJanuary 22, 2013 — Trial Court Abuses Its Discretion by Forcing Insurer to Bear the Cost of Giving Notice to Putative Class MembersJanuary 14, 2013 — Store Owner Entitled to Attorney Fee Award for Successful Defense of Disabled Persons Act ClaimDecember 12, 2012 — The Lack Of An Enforceable Contract Does Not Require Denial Of Attorney Fees ClaimDecember 5, 2012 — Offset Required For Attorney Fee Award In Social Security CaseDecember 4, 2012 — County Counsel Is Eligible to Recover "Costs" But Not "Attorney Fees" In Bail Bond Forfeiture MatterNovember 5, 2012 — "Cy Pres" Award to Charity From Class Action Settlement Was ImproperNovember 2, 2012 — Prevailing Employer Is Entitled To Fee AwardOctober 31, 2012 — Environmental Group Is Denied Fee Award Even Where It Successfully Challenged Agency DecisionOctober 30, 2012 — Fee Award Is Proper for Tenant Who Defeats Landlord's Fraud ClaimOctober 29, 2012 — Magistrate Judge Abuses Discretion by Applying "De Facto" Cap for Attorney Fee AwardOctober 17, 2012 — Employer Is Not Entitled To A Fee Award In Case Alleging Unpaid WagesSeptember 25, 2012 — Waiver Of Attorney Fees Contained In Residency Agreement Is Contrary To Public PolicySeptember 24, 2012 — Fee Award to Insurance Defense Firm May Be at Augmented RatesSeptember 18, 2012 — Written Fee Agreement Is Not Required For Ordinary Probate WorkSeptember 6, 2012 — Waiver of Agreement to Arbitrate Requires Denial of Petition to Compel ArbitrationAugust 31, 2012 — Disputed Legal Authority Requires Reversal of Sanctions AwardAugust 30, 2012 — Public Entity Litigants Are Entitled to Attorney Fee Award Under Private Attorney General Doctrine Even Where Non Financial Interests Are In PlayAugust 23, 2012 — Ethical Conflicts Dooms Fee Claim in a Major Antitrust Class ActionAugust 15, 2012 — Private Dispute Under the "Unclaimed Property" Law Does Not Justify an Award of Attorney FeesJuly 23, 2012 — Attorney Fees Incurred to Defend the Bankruptcy Court's Stay Violation Order are Subject to RecoveryJuly 20, 2012 — The JOBS Act & Crowdfunding - Is It For You?July 20, 2012 — Attorney Member of Public Interest Organization Properly Awarded Attorney FeesJuly 13, 2012 — Hiring a Lawyer for Your Startup - Big Firm or Small Firm?July 5, 2012 — Tips for Selecting an AttorneyJuly 3, 2012 — Failure to Engage in Mandatory Contractual Mediation Bars Fee ClaimJune 22, 2012 — Qualitative Legal Audit: What We Do in a Typical Analysis of FeesJune 18, 2012 — We May Need a Lawyer for That - Typical Legal Needs for a StartupJune 8, 2012 — Date of Accrual of Interest on Attorney Fee Award Is Not Necessarily from the Date of the Original JudgmentJune 6, 2012 — There Can Only Be One Prevailing Party Under Civil Code Section 1717June 5, 2012 — Justices Weigh Arguments on Stacking in Toxic Tort CasesJune 4, 2012 — I Enjoyed Lunch with My Attorney Until I Received a Bill for It!May 21, 2012 — Attorney Fees Properly Awarded Where the Applicable Contract Authorizes An Award "In Any Dispute"May 8, 2012 — Attorney Fees are Properly Awarded Under Prison Litigation Reform ActMay 7, 2012 — Chairperson of Insurance Board Denied Claim for Attorney FeesMay 4, 2012 — Attorney, Not the Client, is Entitled to Retain Attorney Fees in Wage and Overtime LitigationMay 1, 2012 — For Better or For Worse, Court Finds Joint 998 Offer To Husband and Wife Sufficient Basis For Expert Witness Fees and Costs AwardApril 26, 2012 — District Court Doesn't 'Like' Facebook In Fee Award DecisionApril 18, 2012 — FEHA-Related Fee Claims Must Be Based on a Finding that the Claim is Actually FrivolousApril 17, 2012 — Court Invalidates Fee Award Premised on Financial Ramifications on Non-Prevailing PartyApril 6, 2012 — Plaintiff Wins Expert Costs and Attorney Fees Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998(D)March 20, 2012 — Earliest Reasonable Offer Governs Cost Recovery Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 998March 19, 2012 — Nonpayment of Arbitration Fees Dooms Arbitral AwardMarch 8, 2012 — Court is Entitled to Render Equitable Apportionment of Attorney Fees in Partition ActionFebruary 28, 2012 — Counsel's Mistaken Decision Constituted Good Cause to Extend the Deadline for Filing of a Fee PetitionFebruary 9, 2012 — Fee Award Rendered Against Prisoner for Maintaining Frivolous Litigation is Not Subject to Discharge Under the Federal Bankruptcy CodeJanuary 31, 2012 — California Civil Code Section 1717 Provides for Mutuality of Remedy in Favor of a Third Party BeneficiaryJanuary 18, 2012 — Party Who Pursues Litigation to Enforce CC&Rs Needs to "Get Ducks in a Row" Prior to SuingJanuary 17, 2012 — "Of Counsel" Title Does Not Automatically Bar Claim for Attorney FeesJanuary 12, 2012 — Finding of Implied Waiver of Fees Contained in Marital Settlement Agreement Trumps Fee ClaimsDecember 13, 2011 — Legally Separate Cause of Action Supports a Fee Award Under Civil Code Section 1717November 29, 2011 — A Sanctions Attorney Fee Motion Requires a Finding of Frivolous Conduct for JustificationNovember 28, 2011 — Sanction Award is Improper Even if Defense Counsel Admitted to Violation of the Court OrderNovember 21, 2011 — Cost Shifting is Proper Where Defendant's Section 998 Offer Was Reasonable as a Matter of LawNovember 21, 2011 — An Employer is Eligible to Recover Costs Under Labor Code Section 1194November 4, 2011 — Untimely SLAPP Motion Does Not Support a Fee AwardNovember 2, 2011 — Court Properly Awards Contingency Attorney Fees as RestitutionOctober 31, 2011 — Ninth Circuit Rules That Attorney Fees are Properly Awarded Under Petroleum Marketing Practices ActSeptember 29, 2011 — Attorney Properly Rejects Attorney Fee Arbitration Award by Filing a Small Claims ActionSeptember 28, 2011 — Attorney/Spouse Exception Allows Civil Rights Plaintiff to Obtain FeesSeptember 26, 2011 — Ninth Circuit Finds Insufficient Basis for Large Attorney Fee AwardAugust 3, 2011 — Settlement Offer Referencing Costs Includes Attorney FeesAugust 2, 2011 — Family Law Judge Properly Grants Substantial Sanctions Against Party Whose Misconduct Increased Litigation CostsJuly 27, 2011 — Retainer Agreement Prohibiting Settlement Without Attorney Consent Violates Public PolicyJuly 26, 2011 — Pro Per Plaintiffs Who are Attorneys are Not Eligible for Fee AwardJuly 22, 2011 — Trial Court Abuses Its Discretion in Applying Negative Multiplier To Set Attorney FeesJuly 11, 2011 — Minor Victories Do Not Support an Award of Fees Under California's Private Attorney General DoctrineJune 14, 2011 — Pro Se Attorney Litigants are Not Eligible for an Award of Attorney FeesJune 9, 2011 — Family Law Judge Has the Authority to Award "Just and Reasonable" Attorney FeesJune 2, 2011 — Attorney Fee Award is Reversed Where It is Rendered Without Proper Statutory AuthorizationMay 16, 2011 — Attorney Fee Award Overturned in Tobacco LitigationMay 13, 2011 — Court Ruling Taxing Appellate Costs is Subject to an Immediate AppealMay 12, 2011 — Who is on the Hook for Costs in Paying Subpoenaed Peace Officers?April 27, 2011 — Trial Court Improperly Grants an Award of Fees to Tenant Under Fair Housing ActApril 26, 2011 — Lower Court Properly Reinstates Arbitration Award Granting FeesApril 7, 2011 — 2860 Fee Arbitration is Denied Where Insurer is Not Currently DefendingMarch 28, 2011 — Private Attorney General Doctrine Authorizes Attorney Fees in a Political DisputeMarch 24, 2011 — Costs for Translation Services are Properly Awarded to the Prevailing PartyMarch 23, 2011 — Fee Award is Overturned in Alleged Housing Discrimination MatterMarch 18, 2011 — Claim Must be Frivolous to Support a Fee Award for Malicious ProsecutionFebruary 10, 2011 — Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Spouse Results in Fee AwardFebruary 9, 2011 — Breach of Fee Sharing Agreement Excuses Party from Contractual ObligationsFebruary 2, 2011 — Court Has No Jurisdiction Over a Fee Claim Appeal When the Appellant Jumps the GunFebruary 1, 2011 — Assignee May Pursue Claim for Indemnification for Unreimbursed Counsel FeesJanuary 31, 2011 — U. C. Regents Have Constitutional Immunity from Plaintiff's Attorney Fee MotionDecember 21, 2010 — Failure To Satisfy Statutory Criteria Voids Contingency Fee AgreementDecember 15, 2010 — Attorney Fee Award is Appropriate Based on Successful Forum Non Conveniens MotionDecember 13, 2010 — Fee Award is Overturned Where Trial Court Failed to Consider the Question of Settlement EffortDecember 10, 2010 — California Civil Code § 1717 is a Proper Basis for an Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to a Performance BondNovember 4, 2010 — Anti-SLAPP Statute Does Not Authorize an Award of Attorney Fees Against Plaintiff's CounselNovember 3, 2010 — Party Must Be an Intended Beneficiary of the Contract to Invoke the Reciprocity Provision of Civil Code Section 1717October 26, 2010 — Finding That an Anti-SLAPP Motion is Frivolous Justifies Fee AwardOctober 25, 2010 — Technical Construction of 'Actual Controversy' Requirement Under CCP § 1060 is Overturned in Dispute Over FeesOctober 21, 2010 — Award of Attorney Fees is Improper Where Litigation Sought Renewal of Grazing Permits Rather than the Grant or Renewal of a LicenseOctober 20, 2010 — Disclosure of the Nature of Legal Practice and Representation is Required by Arbitrator in Fee Dispute MatterSeptember 30, 2010 — Fee Award Is Reversed Where Lower Court Failed To Consider Complexities Of Appellate WorkSeptember 23, 2010 — Arbitrators Fee Award Based on Percentage of Property Value Conveyed in Settlement is UpheldSeptember 10, 2010 — Courts are Required to Award Attorney Fees to a Substantially Prevailing Party in Peer Review LawsuitsSeptember 3, 2010 — Injunctive Relief Related Fee Awards are Subject to Automatic Stay Pending AppealSeptember 1, 2010 — Prevailing Defendant Entitled to Fee Award Unrelated To Claims Seeking Unpaid WagesJuly 23, 2010 — In "Bet the Farm" Cases, Court Calls for Close Scrutiny of ReasonablenessJuly 22, 2010 — Action Against Landlord Under The Unfair Competition Statute Cannot Support Attorney Fee AwardJuly 20, 2010 — Award of Attorney Fees Under the Automobile Sale Finance Act Upheld by Court of AppealJune 24, 2010 — Limitations on Attorney Fees Under Probate Code Section 17211June 21, 2010 — Attorney Fees Awards Subject to Offset Litigants' Preexisting Debts to the U.S. GovernmentJune 16, 2010 — Improper Involuntary Bankruptcy Petition Gives Rise to Award of Counsel FeesJune 16, 2010 — Fees Incurred for Monitoring Settlement Agreement Compliance are Recoverable Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988June 16, 2010 — Unsatisfied Judgment Allows Prevailing Party to Recover Attorney FeesMay 26, 2010 — Non-Taxable Costs May Be Awarded Under the Fair Credit Reporting ActMay 25, 2010 — Interest Incurred on Borrowed Funds to Secure an Undertaking is Not RecoverableApril 9, 2010 — Private Attorney General Fees are Only Available in an Action Against the Opposing PartyApril 9, 2010 — Discretion to Deny Costs and Attorney Fees to FEHA Plaintiffs Rests with the Trial CourtsApril 1, 2010 — Court Decides Novel Issue Concerning Priority of a Contractual Lien for Legal ServicesFebruary 19, 2010 — Attorneys Fee Provision in California Disabled Persons Act Is Not Preempted by the ADAFebruary 16, 2010 — Plaintiffs Fail To Satisfy the "Prevailing Party" StandardFebruary 5, 2010 — Municipal Ordinance Permits Attorney Fee Award Only In Limited ProceedingsJanuary 29, 2010 — Ninth Circuit Overturns Attorney Fee Award Against the GovernmentJanuary 19, 2010 — Public Entity is Entitled to Hire Private Law Firm in Tax Assessment ProceedingsDecember 14, 2009 — Improper Claim Brought by Trust Beneficiaries Can be Remedied Through an Attorney Fee Award Rendered Under the Equitable Power of the Probate CourtDecember 10, 2009 — Appellate Court Concludes that Cost Shifting is Calculated from the Date of the Last Urevoked Offer of JudgmentNovember 16, 2009 — Award of Attorney's Fees is Proper for Successful Anti-Slapp Motion in Addition to Fee Claims Related to Malicious Prosecution ActionNovember 11, 2009 — Is a Court Allowed to Enhance a Fee Award Based on the Quality of Performance of Counsel?November 9, 2009 — Ninth Circuit Rejects Exclusive Use of Lodestar Approach in Calculating Fees in Denial of Disability Insurance Benefits MattersOctober 30, 2009 — Trial Court Must Make Findings Establishing A Reasonable Basis For Fee AwardOctober 26, 2009 — Foreign Court Order Ruled Unenforceable: Court Nullifies Award of Attorneys FeesSeptember 29, 2009 — Trial Court Errs In Refusing to Award Litigation Costs but Not Fees to Adverse PartySeptember 15, 2009 — Liability Insurance Carrier Only Required to Pay A Pro Rata Share of Fees Incurred In The Subrogated Recovery Context, Not The Entire Amount Under The "Made Whole" DoctrineSeptember 8, 2009 — Plaintiff Denied Attorney Fees Even Where He Prevailed on AppealAugust 21, 2009 — "Clear Sailing" Agreement Is Approved By Court In Consolidated Consumer Class Action CaseJuly 14, 2009 — Plaintiffs are "Prevailing Parties" Under California Code Of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 Where the Action Enforces an Important Public RightJuly 10, 2009 — Ninth Circuit Overrules "Prevailing Party" DecisionJune 24, 2009 — "Citizens for Better Forestry" Denied Fees Where Ninth Circuit Concludes Environmental Organization Was Not The "Prevailing Party"June 17, 2009 — Attorney's Fees Award Against Counsel is Reversed for Lack of Statutory AuthorizationJune 11, 2009 — Trial Court's Expansive Ruling on Recovery of Counsel Fees is Upheld on AppealJune 8, 2009 — Judge Makes Decision on the Necessity and Reasonableness of Fees And Costs In Lead Paint Toy ClaimsJune 2, 2009 — Court Abuses Discretion by Denying Award of Counsel FeesMay 18, 2009 — Litigant Is Not Entitled To Attorney Fees Where Insurer Disputes Request For Medical TreatmentApril 30, 2009 — Clarification Whether A Party Is Required To FileA Proposed Judgment Together With A Memorandum Of Costs In A Voluntary Dismissal ScenarioApril 16, 2009 — Helpful Tips to Ensure Compliance With Billing GuidelinesApril 8, 2009 — The Basics for Preparing a Petition Seeking Attorneys' FeesMarch 17, 2009 — Fee Shifting Statutes Under California LawMarch 6, 2009 — Qualitative Versus Quantitative Audits: Two Different ApproachesMarch 2, 2009 — Conference for the Council on Litigation Management on March 12th and 13th, 2009March 2, 2009 — Winterrowd v. American General Annuity Insurance CompanyFebruary 17, 2009 — Christian Research Institute v AlnorJanuary 15, 2009 — New Case Law Regarding Right to Cumis Fee Arbitration