Case Summaries

Attorney's Fees

[01/05] Marriage of Sorge
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court modifying a child support award and imposing sanctions with an award of attorney's fees, judgment is reversed where the fiduciary duty to disclose material changes in income ends upon entry of a divorce decree, but affirmed otherwise.

[01/03] MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson
In a case in which a patent holder's infringement case was dismissed on summary judgment and the district court subsequently granted the defendants' motion for an award of attorney's fees and expert witness fees, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in declaring the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. section 285 and finding that the patent holder's claims were brought in bad faith and were objectively baseless, and that the patent holder engaged in litigation misconduct; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding expert fees because the patent holder's vexatious conduct and bad faith increased the cost of litigation in ways that were not compensated under 35 U.S.C. section 285.

[12/28] Portico Management Group, LLC v. Harrison
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying plaintiff's motion to enforce an arbitration award against a trust and awarding successor trustees post-arbitration attorney fees as prevailing parties, judgment is affirmed where the trial court correctly held that it was improper to enter judgment against the trust, but reversed where it erred in denying plaintiff's motion to join a trustee as a defendant on an alter ego theory.

[12/22] Patrick v. Shinseki
In a case in which a widow of a deceased veteran had prevailed on a claim for dependency and indemnity compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs and then sought an award of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying her EAJA application is reversed and remanded for a determination of whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the government carried its burden of demonstrating that its position opposing the compensation award was substantially justified.

[12/21] Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for labor and wages violations, judgment is: 1) affirmed because plaintiff was not entitled to receive reporting time pay for attending meetings at work, where all the meetings were scheduled and plaintiff worked at least half the scheduled time; and 2) affirmed as he was not owed additional compensation for working split shifts, where on each occasion he worked a split shift he earned more than the minimum amount required by a wage order; but 3) reversed on the trial court's award of attorney fees to the defendant since plaintiffs' claims were subject to Labor Code section 1194.

[12/20] UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC
In an appeal from an order of the district court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's complaint for direct and secondary copyright infringement against a public website offering streaming music videos, judgment is: 1) affirmed where defendant is entitled to Section 512(c) safe harbor protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and where the district court correctly concluded that Rule 68 attorney’s fees were inappropriate; but 2) remanded for the court to consider in the first instance whether defendant is entitled to Rule 68 costs, excluding attorney’s fees.

[12/16] Kumar v. Yu
Judgment of the trial court on plaintiff's complaint for breach of a property lease agreement is reversed as to the award of attorney's fees, but affirmed in all other respects.

[12/09] Cargill v. Souza
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial denying defendant's motion for attorney's fees as a prevailing party in an action to enforce a transfer agreement, judgment is reversed where the court incorrectly held that the relevant attorney fees provision did not apply to third party beneficiaries because had plaintiff prevailed, it would have been entitled to such fees as a third-party beneficiary.

[12/01] Plasterers' Local Union No. 96 v. Pepper
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court in favor of plaintiff-trustees in an action for breach of fiduciary duty under the ERISA, judgment is reversed where the court erred in its determination of liability, its method of calculating damages, and the award of attorneys' fees.

[11/21] Hopkins and Carley v. Gens
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying defendant's motion to vacate an arbitration award and imposing sanctions, judgment is affirmed where defendant offered no coherent explanation for his failure to raise a supposed defense to the underlying action sooner, and because defendant made no attempt to substantiate the legal defenses he asserted in support of his motion.

[11/18] Vargas v. City of Salinas
In an appeal from post-judgment orders awarding Section 1021.5 attorney fees to defendants following plaintiff's unsuccessful complaint for alleged misuse of public funds, orders are affirmed where an award of attorney fees to a government defendant does not require a finding that the failed litigation falls within the "sham" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

[11/17] Durand v. US Department of Labor
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying plaintiff a deduction of costs from a Federal Employee Compensation Act refund, 5 U.S.C. Section 8132, judgment is affirmed where a beneficiary under Section 8132 may deduct his litigation costs only from his gross recovery to determine the amount, if any, of the surplus he must credit to the United States for future benefits.

[11/17] Cordero-Sacks v. Hous. Auth. of L.A.
In an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her complaint for wrongful termination and a False Claims Act (Act) allegation of retaliatory termination, judgment is affirmed as modified where although a governmental agency is not a "person" subject to suit under the Act, the defendant-agency is liable as an employer under the Act's prohibition against retaliatory discharge.

[11/16] Fuentes v. AutoZone, Inc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court against the defendant in plaintiff's complaint for sexual harassment, judgment is affirmed where plaintiff's testimony was not improbable and substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict.

[11/15] Conservatorship of Cornelius
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court allowing the recovery of costs and legal fees incurred by a temporary conservator after the conservator dismissed her petition for permanent conservatorship, judgment is affirmed where Probate Code sections 2641 and 2642 apply to a temporary conservatorship, and because the awarded amount was not excessive and therefore not an abuse of discretion.

[11/15] Shepherd v. Goord
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court capping the award of plaintiff's attorney fees, judgment is affirmed where the Prison Litigation Reform Act caps the maximum award of fees in the case at 150 percent of plaintiff's $1.00 recovery.

[11/14] Salehi v. Surfside III Condo. Owners' Assoc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying defendant's motion for attorney fees in an action to enforce certain covenants, conditions, and restrictions of a condominium project, judgment is reversed where the denial was an abuse of discretion because defendant was entitled to costs as the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032.

[11/14] Powell v. The Home Depot USA, Inc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court finding that defendant literally and willfully infringed on plaintiff's patent for radial arm saw guards and awarding enhanced damages and attorney fees, judgment is affirmed where the verdict and damages determination are supported by substantial evidence, and because the court correctly: 1) constructed subject patent claim; 2) found no inequitable conduct; and 3) awarded attorney fees for litigation misconduct and vexatious and bad faith litigation by defendant.

[11/10] Dzwonkowski v. Spinella
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court confirming an arbitration award and awarding attorney's fees in an attorney-client fee dispute, judgment is affirmed where the court correctly found that plaintiff-law firm was obligated to pay counsel who initially represented the client and because an attorney-client relationship existed between the firm and such counsel, and that both parties had distinct interests.

[11/07] Ditullio v. Boehm
In a certified interlocutory appeal involving the scope of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. section 1589 et seq., certified questions are answered as follows: 1) the TVPA permits recovery of punitive damages because it creates a cause of action that sounds in tort; and 2) the TVPA does not apply retroactively to conduct that occurred before its effective date.

[11/07] Marr. of Guilardi
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing Wife's request for attorney fees under Family Code section 2030, judgment is affirmed where the waiver of attorney fees is not inconsistent with subject marital settlement agreement and the law, and because fees for the set-aside proceeding were not justified under the circumstances presented.

Back to Main