Source: http://www.calattorneysfees.com/cases_cases_under_review/
Timestamp: 2017-02-24 12:32:00
Document Index: 308476814

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 505', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 685', '§ 15600', '§ 998', '§ 54', '§ 12101']

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY'S FEES : Cases: Cases Under Review CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY'S FEES ABOUT
2008-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014-2015 Marc Alexander & William M. Hensley Cases: Cases Under Review
We can report that the California Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on an attorney's fees issue on February 7, 2017. The case pits the Second District against the Fourth District, Division Three as far as whether procedural dismissals in forum selection/venue contexts will allow the defense to recoup attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1717. Here is the California Supreme Court's description of the issue being considered:
"DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com et al., S226652#15-134 DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com et al., S226652. (B248694; 235 Cal.App.4th 1261; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC489083.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying an award of attorney fees in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Were defendants entitled to an award of attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 as the prevailing parties in an action on a contract when they obtained the dismissal of the action on procedural grounds pursuant to a Florida forum selection clause?"
Certiorari Granted With Consolidated Case On September 29, 2016. On September 29, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15-1406 (U.S.), a Ninth Circuit 2-1 decision [discussed in our July 21, 2015 post], and consolidated it with Musnuff v. Haeger, No. 15-1491 (U.S.). The Ninth Circuit decision, over a dissent by Circuit Judge Watford, affirmed a $2.7 million sanction award granted under the “inherent authority of the court” without requiring a causal connection between the sanctioned conduct and civil monetary sanction imposed. The Ninth Circuit majority decided that no precise linkage was required between the harm and compensatory sanctions awarded where the sanctionable conduct was frequent and severe. Here is the issue presented for review in this case: Whether a federal court is required to tailor compensatory civil sanctions imposed under inherent powers to harm directly caused by sanctionable misconduct when the court does not afford sanctioned parties the protections of criminal due process. Posted at 02:13 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Sanctions | Permalink
Viability of Jewell v. Boxer Is At Stake. In our July 30, 2016 post, we observed that the Ninth Circuit in In the Matter of Heller Ehrman LLP, Case No. 14-16314 (9th Cir. 7/27/16) (published) certified to the California Supreme Court the following outcome determinative question: “Under California law, does a dissolved law firm have a property interest in legal matters that are in progress but not completed at the time the law firm is dissolved, when the dissolved law firm had been retained to handle the matters on an hourly basis?” We can now report that the California Supreme Court granted the federal appeals court’s request to take up the issue, which will determine if the case of Jewell v. Boxer has viability on how unfinished business is handled upon a law firm’s dissolution. The state supreme court announced it will take up the issue on September 14, 2016.
Posted at 04:46 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
Case Involved Vacated Arbitration Award To Former Attorneys Based On Violation of CRC 3-310. On January 30, 2016, we posted on Sheppard, Mullin v. J-M Manufacturing, a Second District published decision (at the time) vacating a $1.3 million attorney’s fees award to former attorneys after an arbitration based on former attorneys’ conflict found to be violative of CRC 3-310. We can report that the California Supreme Court accepted review on April 27, 2016 (Case No. S232946).
Posted at 07:58 AM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
Eighth Circuit Reverses Nearly $4.7 Million Fee Award Against EEOC, But Prevailing Party Issue Looks To Predominate. On January 3, 2016, we posted on the fact that the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) granted certiorari with respect to an Eighth Circuit opinion reversing a nearly $4.7 million fee award against EEOC based on its failure to prevail in a case against a business, with summary judgment granted against EEOC on mainly procedural grounds. The case is CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375 (SCOTUS). Oral argument by SCOTUS on this case is scheduled for March 28, 2016. We can now further report that Ross Runkel, a full-time labor-management arbitrator and legal professor emeritus at Willamette University College of Law, has written a March 21, 2016 post on SCOTUSblog (hyperlinked here) providing some nice insights into the issues being faced by SCOTUS in this case, including some possibly “newly raised” arguments which might make argument very interesting in this matter. Stay tuned.
Certiorari Granted On January 15, 2016 From Second Circuit Denial Of Fees To Prevailing Defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court, on January 15, 2016, granted certiorari to resolve a split among circuit courts on the proper standard for awarding attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 505). The case is Kirtsaeng d/b/a Bluechristine 99 v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 15-375 (U.S.), with the certiorari petition contending that circuit courts used a variety of formulations, ranging from whether the successful claim or defense advanced or narrowed the litigation in a pragmatic way; whether the claim or defense was objectively unreasonable or frivolous in nature; application of a presumption of a fee award being recoverable by the prevailing party; or whether a fee award would advance the purposes of the Copyright Act. The Second Circuit affirmed a fee award denial to a prevailing defendant arguing he had a successful copyright infringement defense (requesting over $2 million in fees).
Posted at 08:53 AM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Intellectual Property | Permalink
Resulting Article III Controversy Requirement Met Because All Parties Remained Adverse After Offer Not Accepted. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (U.S. Supreme Court Jan. 20, 2016) (published), SCOTUS decided that an unaccepted F.R.Civ.P. 68 offer to judgment, which would have given complete relief as to the individual plaintiff’s claim, did not moot either the plaintiff’s individual claims or the putative class’s claims under the Complaint remaining intact. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority in a 6-3 vote (with Justice Thomas concurring on a different basis), observed: “With the offer off the table, and defendant’s continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persist” for Article III controversy purposes.
Standard For Fee Recovery Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) At Issue, With Cert Petition Saying Different Thinking In Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. On December 4, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 774 F.3d 1169 (8th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, No. 14-1375 (Dec. 1, 2015). In that case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a $4.6 million attorney’s fees award against the EEOC in a case where the district court granted summary judgment to the defense based on EEOC’s failure to satisfy pre-suit investigation, reasonable care, and conciliation obligations, with the district court’s fee award based on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). The Eighth Circuit did so because it held that a dismissal on the merits was required. In the certiorari petition, the Eighth Circuit was argued to be at odds with contrary decisions from the Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits allowing for a fee recovery against the EEOC based on unreasonable conduct rather than a merits ruling. Some SCOTUS commentators are expecting a decision by mid- to late 2016.
Posted at 11:10 AM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
In a supplement to our normal Top 20 California fees/costs decision (sorry, Dave Letterman, beard and all, we doubled your efforts even though you are in retirement but we enjoyed your Top 10 every night you were on air), here is a summary of cases pending in front of the California Supreme Court on issues of interest to our blog. We wish all our readers very Happiest of Holidays. Again, any listing is not meant to imply any priority on importance of issues. 1. Lafitte v. Robert Half International, Inc., S222996—2d Dist. Div. 7, 231 Cal.App.4th 860 (Segal, J., L.A. Superior Court Judge appointed by designation and subsequently a sitting Justice) [former published cite; initially discussed in our Nov. 7, 2014 post]. Here is the issue which the state supreme court is focusing on: “Does Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (1977) permit a trial court to anchor its calculation of a reasonable attorney’s fees award in a class action on a percentage of the common fund recovered?” 2. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court, S226645—2d Dist., Div. 3, 235 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Aldrich, J.) [former published cite; initially discussed in our April 19, 2015 post]. 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?” 3. DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, S226652—2d Dist., Div. 2, 235 Cal.App.4th 1261 (Ashmann-Gerst, J. [former published cite; initially discussed in our April 15, 2015 post]. 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. 4. Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, S223536—lst Dist., Div. 2, 231 Cal.App.4th 805 (Stewart, J. [maj. opn.]; Richman, J. [dis. opn.]) [former published cite; initially discussed in our Nov. 21, 2014 post]. “This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the assertion of an agreement as an affirmative defense implicate the attorney fee provision in that agreement? (2) Does the term ‘action’ or ‘proceeding’ in Civil Code section 1717 and in attorney fee provisions encompass the assertion of an affirmative defense?” This case was fully briefed as of August 6, 2015. 5. deSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, S219236—6th Dist., 225 Cal.App.4th 1427 (Grover, J.) [former published cite; initially discussed in our May 4, 2014 post]. “This case presents the following issue: When plaintiff dismissed her action in exchange for the defendant’s payment of a monetary settlement, was she the prevailing party for purposes of an award of costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4), because she was ‘the party with a net monetary recovery,’ or was defendant the prevailing party because it was ‘a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered’?” This case is scheduled for oral argument on January 5, 2016 before the California Supreme Court. Happy New Year, everyone!
Split Opinion Decided Novation Defense Was “On The Contract” For Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717 Purposes. On November 21, 2014, we posted on Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, 2014 WL 6488418 (Nov. 20, 2014) [1st Dist., Div. 2; majority opinion by Stewart, J. and dissenting opinion by Richman, J.], which held that “action” language in fees clause was interpreted broadly to allow recovery of fees for successful novation defense, agreeing with Windsor and dissenting opinion in Gil (both Second District decisions). This case was accepted for California Supreme Court review on March 18, 2015, with the Issues Summary stating what is involved: “This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the assertion of an agreement as an affirmative defense implicate the attorney fee provision in that agreement? (2) Does the term “action” or “proceeding” in Civil Code section 1717 and in attorney fee provisions encompass the assertion of an affirmative defense?” The case was fully briefed as of August 6, 2015.
Posted at 02:14 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717 | Permalink
Cases Under Review: California Supreme Court Grants Review Of County of Los Angeles Board Of Supervisors Decision
7-0 Was The Vote. Yesterday, we posted on LACBA’s letter request to the California Supreme Court to either grant review or depublish County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU), a Second District decision finding that attorney billing statements were privileged and did not have to be disclosed under California’s Public Records Act. At the weekly conference held on July 8, 2012, our state supreme court granted review of the case in a 7-0 vote. Posted at 10:08 AM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
$202,882.50 In Fees Had Been Requested. Portugal v. Sewer and Pipeline Contractor, Inc., Case No. B251730 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished) dealt with a former employee suing an employer for minimum wage/overtime compensation violations. Employee served a 998 offer, which did not allocate a $20,000 settlement offer among claims and which was silent about fees/costs. Employer accepted, and employee moved to recoup fees under statutory Labor Code fee-shifting provisions. The lower court awarded employee $162,434.25 out of a requested $202,882.50 as attorney’s fees. Employer’s appeal was to no avail. The 998 offer was a contract, and the silence about fees/costs meant employee should seek them later. Labor Code section 1194, a unilateral fee-shifting provision in favor of an employee-plaintiff, was a proper fee entitlement for the award. Because section 1194 was a correct basis for the award to employee as a prevailing party, the appellate panel did not have to get into the deSaulles issue currently pending before the California Supreme Court. BLOG OBSERVATION—Here is the review issue presented in deSaulles: “When plaintiff dismissed her action in exchange for the defendant’s payment of a monetary settlement, was she the prevailing party for purposes of an award of costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4), because she was ‘the party with a net monetary recovery,’ or was defendant the prevailing party because it was ‘a defendant in whose favor a dismissal was entered’?” (deSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1427, review granted July 23, 2014, No. S219236.)
Petition For Review Was Granted On February 25, 2015. On February 25, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted review of the following case, with the issue involved described this way in its Weekly Summary for the week of February 23, 2015: Lafitte v. Robert Half Internat., Inc., S222996. (B249253; 231 Cal.App.4th 860; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC321317.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25 permit a trial court to anchor its calculation of a reasonable attorney’s fees award in a class action on a percentage of the common fund recovered? We first discussed this case on our November 7, 2014 post, when the decision was unpublished. Later, it was certified for publication. Now, it is up for review.
Posted at 07:39 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
Tract 19051 HOA And Williams Matters Set To Be Argued. On February 4, 2015, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments in two prevailing defendant cases, one involving fee recovery and the second involving routine costs recovery. In Tract 19051 Homeowners Association v. Kemp, No. S211596, the Court will consider whether a prevailing homeowner defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1354 in an action to enforce governing documents when it is later determined that the HOA was not a common interest development and its governing documents were not properly enacted. The second case, Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., No. S213100, concerns whether a prevailing defendant in a FEHA action is required to show plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless in order to recover routine litigation costs. Both cases were granted review previously by all seven of the state supreme court justices involved in the germane weekly conferences at the time. Argument is set in Sacramento, and likely will involve two recently appointed members—Justices Cuellar and Kruger.
Posted at 10:53 AM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
On Amended January 2015 California Supreme Court Calendar. An attorney's fees case has been scheduled for argument on the California Supreme Court's amended January 7, 2015 calendar, with a notation that it will be called and then continued for argument until the February 2015 calendar. Here is what the case is about: Tract 19051 Homeowners Association et al. v. Kemp (Maurice) et al., S211596. (B236015; nonpublished opinion; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC398978.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an award of attorney's fees and otherwise affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Is a prevailing homeowner entitled to attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1354 in an action by a homeowners association to enforce its governing documents as those of a common interest development when the homeowner prevailed because it was later determined that the subdivision was not such a development and its governing documents had not been properly reenacted?
Posted at 05:22 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
Fifth Circuit Decision Saying No Fees For These Efforts Under Scrutiny. On October 2, 2014, we posted on SCOTUS granting certiorari with respect to a Fifth Circuit decision denying Baker Botts substantial fees and costs in defending their core application fee efforts. According to Law 360, “[t]he federal government on Wednesday [December 10, 2014] joined state bar associations from California, Florida, New York, Texas and others urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a Fifth Circuit decision that overturned fees associated with Baker Botts LLP's $117 million fee award for defending Asarco LLC in the mining company's bankruptcy.”
Posted at 04:45 PM in Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
Bankruptcy/Cases Under Review: SCOTUS Grants Certiorari To Decide If Bankruptcy Attorneys Can Get Compensation For Defending Fee Application Requests Relating To “Core Fees” Fifth and Ninth Circuits Are Split On The Issue. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether bankruptcy judges have discretion under Bankruptcy Code section 330(a) to award bankruptcy attorneys fees and costs for defending fees/expenses which are the subject of fee applications for “core” fees. (It has long been recognized that fees and costs can be awarded for preparing bankruptcy fee applications.) The Ninth Circuit, in In re Smith, 317 F.3d 918, 929 (9th Cir. 2002) said “yes,” while the Fifth Circuit, in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 751 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2014) said categorically “no.” The Fifth Circuit, in effect, denied about $5.5 million in fees and costs to Baker Botts in the ASARCO bankruptcy if we read the Fifth Circuit opinion correctly, leading to a grant of certiorari (No. 14-103) to resolve the split among federal circuit courts.
Octane Fitness Rejects Rigid Test For Determining What Is An "Exceptional Case," Giving Great Discretion to District Courts. In Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. __, Case No. 12-1184 (U.S. Supreme Ct. Apr. 29, 2014), SCOTUS rejected a more rigid Federal Circuit test for determining what is an "exceptional case" for purposes of awarding attorney's fees to winning patent litigants under 35 U.S.C. section 285. The Federal Circuit defined an "exceptional case" as one which either involves "material inappropriate conduct" or is both "objectively baseless" and "brought in subjective bad faith," requiring that this test be established by clear and convincing evidence. (Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int'l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005). SCOTUS found the Federal Circuit test overly rigid, adopting a broad factually intensive test and rejecting the notion that a clear and convincing evidence standard should apply to fee-shifting statutes like the one before it. Highmark Decided That Appellate Courts Should Review All Aspects of a Section 285 Fee Determination for Abuse of Discretion. The issue in the companion case of Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 572 U.S. __, Case No. 12-1163 (U.S. Supreme Ct. Apr. 29, 2014) was whether an appellate court should accord deference to a district court's determination that litigation was "objectively baseless" for purposes of a section 285 award or use a de novo standard of review. Based on the ruling in Octane Fitness, SCOTUS ruled that all aspects of a 285 "exceptional case" determination should be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard—given that the inquiry is generally rooted in factual determinations. BLOG PREDICTION RESULTS—On March 2, 2014, we posted on these cases after the oral argument. How did we do? Basically, went 2-0, although we may have missed out on the breadth of the decision eventually authored in Octane Fitnesss.
May 7 Is Scheduled Argument Date. We can now report that a fee case involving a conflicting battle between the Elder Abuse and Judgment Enforcement statutory schemes--Conservatorship of the Estate of McQueen (Ida) Taye (Fessha) v. Reed (Carol Veres), S209376 (Poochigian, J., assigned justice pro tempore)—has been scheduled for argument before the California Supreme Court on May 7, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. Here is the state supreme court’s issue synopsis on the matter: “#13-43 Conservatorship of the Estate of McQueen (Ida) Taye (Fessha) v. Reed (Carol Veres), S209376. (A134337; nonpublished opinion; Superior Court of Alameda County; HP05237122.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a motion for post- judgment attorney fees and costs. This case presents the following issue: Is a trial court award of statutorily-mandated fees and costs incurred on appeal subject to the Enforcement of Judgments Statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040 et seq.) if the statutory authority underlying the award is the Elder Abuse Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.)?”
Based on reader feedback, here is a summary of cases involving fees/costs issues that are currently pending for review before the California Supreme Court: 1. SLAPP—Barry v. State Bar of California, No. S214058 (formerly published at 218 Cal.App.4th 1435): if the trial court grants a SLAPP motion on the ground that the plaintiff has no probability of prevailing on the merits because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, does the court have the authority to award the prevailing party fees mandated by CCP section 425.16(c)? Appellate court said no, reversing a contrary lower court fee grant. [Reviewed in our August 22, 2013 post.] 2. JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT/CONSUMER STATUTES—Conservatorship of McQueen, No. S209376 (unpublished appellate decision): is a trial court award of statutorily-mandated fees and costs incurred on appeal subject to the Enforcement of Judgments Statutes if the statutory authority underlying the award is the Elder Abuse Act? Appellate court reversed a lower court fee/costs grant order. [Reviewed in our February 8, 2013 post.] 3. SECTION 1717—Kandy Kiss of California, Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., No. S206354 (formerly published at 209 Cal.App.4th 604): is a party who obtains the dismissal of a contract action entirely on procedural grounds entitled to an award of fees under Civil Code section 1717 as the prevailing party on a contract? Appellate court affirmed a trial order saying yes. [Reviewed in our September 22, 2012 post.] 4. INSURANCE—Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., No. S213873 (formerly published at 219 Cal.App.4th 188): is an award of attorney's fees under Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985) properly included as compensatory damages where the fees are awarded by the jury, but excluded from compensatory damages when they are awarded by the trial court after the jury has rendered its verdict? Appellate court concluded Brandt fees were not included in compensatory verdict for purposes of further calculations. 5. HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS—Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp, No. S211596 (unpublished appellate decision): is a prevailing party homeowner entitled to attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1354 in an action by the HOA to enforce its governing documents as those of a common interest development when the homeowner prevailed because it was later determined that the subdivision was not a CID and its governing documents had not been properly reenacted? Appellate court reversed a fee grant to homeowner. [UPDATE: Attorney Keith Turner, who is representing Petitioner (homeowner) in this one, informed us that the reply brief was filed recently so the matter awaits the supreme court's work-up and setting of oral argument. See our May 16, 2013 post on original DCA opinion.] 6. CIVIL RIGHTS (FEHA)—Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., No. S213100 (formerly published at 218 Cal.App.4th 73): is a prevailing defendant in a FEHA action required to show that the plaintiff's claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless in order to recover ordinary litigation costs? Appellate court said no, affirming a lower court's costs award to the defense. [See our July 24, 2013 post.]
Cases Under Review: U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Dual Patent Fee-Shifting Statute Cases
Octane Fitness and Highmark Deal With Substantive/Review Standard Issues Regarding “Exceptional” Circumstances Allowing Fee Recovery In Certain Patent Cases. As we mentioned in our previous October 15, 2013 post, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider substantive and standard of review issues relating to the “exceptional” language in a patent statute allowing fees to be awarded in exceptional circumstances. Thanks to a February 28, 2014 post on SCOTUSblog, we can report on highlights of the February 25, 2014 arguments on these two cases and will venture a prediction on how these might resolve. Octane Fitness. This one dealt with the Federal Circuit’s “objectively baseless” prong of the “exceptional” test. One side had argued that this should be equated with “meritless” while the Solicitor General had argued for a “necessary to prevent gross injustice” standard. Sounds like the SCOTUS Justices did not like either formulation, preferring a more “facts/circumstances” test. Prediction: SCOTUS will defer to the Federal Circuit’s “objectively baseless” formulation and leave the consideration as an intensively factual one. Highmark. The second case concerned the standard of review on the “objectively baseless” prong. The two views were unitary “abuse of discretion” on objective/subjective prongs or “de novo” on objectively baseless prong. Prediction: SCOTUS will adopt an abuse of discretion review standard on the objectively baseless prong. So, with the Oscars pending or over, we shall see how our predictions hold up. The SCOTUSblog post predicted that decisions would not be rendered until around Memorial Day this year.
Posted at 04:49 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
U.S. Supreme Court So Decides, Finding Rule for Statutorily-Based Fee Motions Applied to Contractually-Based Fee Motions Also. On January 15, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 646 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2014). Earlier, this high court determined that unresolved statutorily-based fee motions do not extend the time to appeal a previously adjudicated merits-based final decision. Haluch Gravel took this earlier decision one step further—an unresolved contractually-based fee motion did not extend the time to appeal an earlier merits-based final decision. This one was unanimous, written by Justice Kennedy, on behalf of the Court. HAT TIP—Thanks to Orange County attorney Steve Krongold for bringing this decision to our attention.
Posted at 06:47 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Deadlines | Permalink
Cases Under Review: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari On Two Fee Issues In Patent Cases
Objectively Baseless Appellate Review and Federal Circuit’s 2-Part “Exceptional Case” Test Are At Issue. On October 1, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review two Federal Circuit opinions involving fee issues in patent cases. Patent Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. Lib. of Cong. The first one, Highmark v. Allcare Health Mgt. Systems, Case No. 12-1163, centers upon whether the Federal Circuit must give deference to a trial judge’s determination that a patent claim is objectively baseless for purposes of awarding fees in a patent troll situation. The Federal Circuit used a de novo review standard, and the issue is whether deference should be given to the lower court’s view below--although the issue to be confronted will apply to all cases (even ones not involving “trolls”). The second one, Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness, Case No. 12-1184, deals with the Federal Circuit’s two-part standard for determining if a case is an “exceptional” one for purposes of awarding fees to a winning party under a patent fee-shifting statute. Here, the defendant won summary judgment, but was denied fees under the “exceptional” statutory language in an unpublished decision. The issue is whether the Federal Circuit’s test improperly appropriates a district court’s discretionary authority to award fees under the patent statute.
Posted at 12:01 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
Issue Is Whether Prevailing Homeowner Entitled To Civil Code Section 1354 Fees When HOA Found Not To Be A CID. On May 16, 2013, we posted on the unpublished Second District decision of Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp, Case No. B235015 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 15, 2013). In this decision, the appellate court reversed a fees award under Civil Code section 1354 after homeowner prevailed by establishing no common interest development (CID) was involved. We give a HAT TIP to attorney Keith Turner, who represented the prevailing homeowner. He has advised us that the California Supreme Court, in a 7-0 vote on August 28, 2013, has granted review of this decision. The state supreme court has framed the issue as this: “Is a prevailing homeowner entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1354 in an action by the homeowners association to enforce its governing documents as those of a common interest development when the homeowner prevailed because it was later determined that the subdivision was not such a development and its governing documents had not been properly reenacted?” Unpublished decisions are rarely granted review. Congratulations to Mr. Turner and we wish him luck in his briefing and future argument in this matter.
Recently, on November 20, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Sebelius v. Cloer, No. 12-236, granted certiorari in a Federal Circuit decision (675 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), where a plaintiff losing a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argued she was still entitled to fee recovery. At the Federal Circuit level, plaintiff prevailed on the argument that the vaccine act’s statute of limitation was not jurisdictional and was subject to equitable tolling, although she was held to have not met the equitable tolling criteria based on the facts of her claim. However, she claimed fee entitlement under the theory that her appeal led to a precedential ruling that potentially benefited others. The Federal Circuit agreed and remanded for a fee determination. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s certiorari petition on the issue and will entertain arguments later this term after briefing is completed. Here is a link to more case information on SCOTUSblawg.
Cases Under Review/Section 998: Martinez 998 Offer Decision Pending For Review By California Supreme Court
On May 9, 2012, the California Supreme Court accepted for review the case of Martinez v. Brownco, 203 Cal.App.4th 507 (2012), which decided that a second CCP § 998 offer does not extinguish a prior one for purposes of shifting fees and costs. Martinez parted company with Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stors, Inc., 72 Cal.App.4th 382 (1999) and Distefano v. Hall, 263 Cal.App.2d 280 (1968) on the same issue. For those of you wanting to follow the case, the California Supreme Court case number is S200944, and merits briefing has been completed according to the supreme court docket.
Posted at 10:46 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Section 998 | Permalink
Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection For those of you following Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Case No. S185827, there is an interesting article by Cynthia Foster in an March 6, 2012 post from The Recorder (Essential California Legal Content). The article suggests that the California Supreme Court appears wary from the flow of the oral argument to find plaintiffs are subject to fee exposure under Labor Code section 1194 with respect to suits centering on meal/rest break claims. However, the question seemed more open to debate is whether it holds that fees can be sought by the defense under a different CCP provision, which one plaintiffs’ attorney is quoted as saying are “not as automatic.” We shall find out soon given that opinions normally are issued within 90 days of submission after oral argument.
Posted at 09:45 AM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
Issue Is Under Review by California Supreme Court in UPS Wage and Hour Cases (McGann). In our February 26, 2011 post, we discussed United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases (McGann), 192 Cal.App.4th 1425, where the Second District, Division 8 decided that a prevailing defendant employer is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 218.5 for successful defense of plaintiffs’ claims for alleged failure to pay meal and rest break premiums under Labor Code section 226.7. The California Supreme Court granted review of UPS (McGann) on May 11, 2011, S191908. Now, in the unpublished decision of United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases (Salcido), Case No. B227556 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 26, 2011) (unpublished), the same division reached the same conclusion. This is must reading for practitioners involved in the state supreme court briefing, because the appellate court does both statutory, legislative history, and case law analysis in coming to its end result. The bottom line was this: “Construing the entire statutory scheme with a view toward protecting employees, as we must, we again find that a claim for remedial compensation under section 226.7 does not trigger the reciprocal fee recovery provisions of section 218.5.” (Slip Opn., p. 8.) Justice Grimes wrote the opinion on behalf of a 3-0 panel.
Posted at 09:41 AM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Employment | Permalink
Fox v. Vice, Fifth Circuit Case, Is Accepted For Review. On November 1, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fox v. Vice, Case No. 10-114, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal decision that, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a fee award against a civil rights plaintiff and in favor of defendants where the federal court found a dismissed civil rights claim was frivolous in nature and where fees were awarded on all claims without segregating out fees for the frivolous as opposed to nonfrivolous claims. The fee shifting provision is section 1988 of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. The High Court will consider both whether defendants can be awarded section 1988 fees when the plaintiff has also brought nonfrivolous claims and whether it is improper for a district judge to award defendants all of their attorney's fees under the statute for the cost of defending against nonfrivolous claims that were intertwined with the alleged frivolous federal anchor claim.
Posted at 12:08 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Civil Rights | Permalink
Preemption Issue Between State and Federal Disability Schemes Under Consideration in Fee Shifting Area For the week of May 10, 2010, the California Supreme Court accepted review of Jankey v. Lee, No. S180890, a former First District, Division 4 decision which we reported on in our February 6, 2010 post (formerly published at 181 Cal.App.4th 1173). Jankey affirmed an attorney’s fees award of $118,458 to a prevailing defendant under the California Disabled Persons Act’s fee shifting provision (Civil Code section 55) despite the fact that the federal analog, the American with Disabilities Act, only allows a defendant to recover fees if plaintiff’s action was “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.” Jankey awarded fees to the defense without factoring in the heightened standard applicable to defendant fee claimants under the federal statute. The issue framed by the state supreme court in its weekly press release on cases accepted for review reads like this: “Is an award of fees to a prevailing defendant under the California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.) inconsistent with, and therefore preempted by, the federal American with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)?” Kiss of Death: Richard Widmark, as gangster Tommy Udo, pushes disabled woman in wheelchair down a flight of stairs.
Posted at 07:20 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Civil Rights | Permalink
Issue Is Whether District Judges Can Enhance Lodestar Based Solely on Quality of Attorney Performance and Results Obtained Under Federal Fee-Shifting Statute. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on an attorney’s fees issues that has generated a split among federal appellate courts on whether district judges can enhance lodestars based solely on the quality of an attorney’s performance and results obtained under a fee-shifting statute when these same factors were already utilized in reaching the lodestar calculus. The case accepted for review is Perdue v. Kenny A., No. 08-970 (U.S. Apr. 6, 2009). There, class action attorneys successfully brought an action against Georgia and several of its governmental agencies/officials to change Georgia’s foster care system, which the suit did—a settlement brought about reduced case loads and more personnel, among other improvements. The class action attorneys then moved for fees, with District Judge Marvin Shoob awarding them a $6 million lodestar plus a $4.5 million enhancement based on class counsel’s skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism under the federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. sec. 1983) containing a fee-shifting provision. Stay tuned for our post on this decision when it comes down from the high court. This decision will impact numerous cases involving about 100 fee-shifting statutes. Opponents that do not believe fees should be enhanced for these factors alone argue that enhancement is effectively a “double dip” for what is considered initially in determining the appropriate lodestar. HAT TIP to Benjamin Shatz of enBanc, the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s official blog for bringing this important development to our attention.
Posted at 09:56 AM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar | Permalink
Validity of Retainer Agreement Contractual Arbitration Provisions and Pro Per Attorney Defendant Eligibility for 128.7 Sanctions At Issue. Yesterday, the California Supreme Court heard argument on the following two cases of interest in the fee recovery arena: Schatz v. Allen Matkins Lack Gamble & Mallory LLP, Case No. S150371 (formerly published at 146 Cal.App.4th 674): Is enforcement of a preexisting arbitration agreement as to a fee dispute between an attorney and client precluded by the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, sec. 6200 et seq.)? Musaelian v. Adams (Warner), Case No. S156045 (formerly published at 153 Cal.App.4th 882): Was defendant, an attorney representing himself in a civil action, entitled to an award of attorney’s fees as a sanction against the plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 for engaging in frivolous litigation? For those wanting more reaction by attorneys involved in the two cases, see Laura Ernde’s article, “High Court to Hear Challenge to Arbitration of Legal Fee Disputes,” in the November 5, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles Daily Journal.
Posted at 08:47 AM in Cases: Cases Under Review | Permalink
Probate Code sections 2640 and 2623 allow the trial court to award a conservator for reasonable attorney’s fees expended in performance of conservatorship services as long as the compensation is “just and reasonable.” Beyond this, however, a conservator must comply with rules 7.702 and 7.751(b) of the California Rules of Court, requiring that a conservator’s attorney must (1) show the nature/difficulty of tasks performed; (2) show the results achieved; (3) show the service benefits to the conservatorship estate; (4) specify the amount requested for each service category performed; (5) state the hourly rate of each person who performed services and the hours spent by each; (6) describe with specificity the services rendered to demonstrate time productivity; and (7) state the estimated amount of statutory compensation to be paid by the estate if the petition is not part of a formal accounting. As with other areas of the law, the reasonableness fees question is one committed to the discretion of the trial court. (Conservatorship of Levitt, 93 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 (2001), citing PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096 (2000) [one of our Leading Cases]; Estate of Merritt, 98 Cal.App.2d 70, 76 (1950).) In Conservatorship of Samuels, Case No. B195217 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 21, 2008) (unpublished), conservator filed a petition for fees, seeking about $450,000 for services rendered to her parents as caregiver, conservator, and attorney (with $200,000 of the requested sum representing claimed attorney’s fees). The probate court, as germane to our blog, only awarded $25,000 for legal services and denied conservator’s request for fee sanctions based on the claim that some objectors made frivolous objections to the accountings. Except for a minor modification on one other unrelated issue, the Second District, Division Four—in a 3-0 opinion by Justice Suzukawa—affirmed the lower court determinations.
Probate Code section 2622.5(a) authorizes the probate court to pay attorney’s fees to a conservator if it determines that an objector’s objections to probate accountings “were without reasonable cause and in bad faith” in the situation where the conservator incurred fees to defend the accountings. The trial court in Samuels refused to award such sanctions, a ruling that was sustained on appeal. The appellate panel found that some of the objections were conceded or well-taken. Although affirming the sanctions denial, Justice Suzukawa did note that our state supreme court is reviewing the issue of whether attorney’s fees can be awarded as sanctions to an attorney who is representing himself/herself in a sanctions proceeding. (See Musaelian v. Adams, 153 Cal.App.4th 882 (2007), rev. granted Oct. 10, 2007.) Stay tuned at this blog, because we will review the results of this decision when it comes down from the California Supreme Court. Posted at 11:23 PM in Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Probate, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes | Permalink