In Evilsizor v. Sweeney (14 C.D.O.S. 12327), the answer was ASAP!
In a contentious dissolution proceeding, a husband sought documents by subpoena from his wife’s bank account, not knowing that his wife’s father’s financial information was contained in the records sought.
Continue reading How Soon Should You Withdraw a Motion That Becomes Moot? →
The process for recovering fees based on contract (Civil Code section 1717) has always been a bit confusing, especially when comparing the language of that statute with the statutes (CCP sections 1033.5 and 1034) and rules (CRC 3.1700 and 3.1702).
Continue reading Fee Motions: Is a Memo of Costs Required? →
Sayers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin, 2014 WL2192362 (Cal.App.1st District)
Plaintiff sued defendants for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendants’ representation of plaintiff in a construction defect case, which lasted over seven years. After the court granted the defendants’ nonsuit motion, defendants sought their attorneys’ fees as the prevailing parties pursuant to the attorney-client fee agreement, in the amount of $843,245.27 (2,324.5 hours of attorney and paralegal time spent defending the construction case).
Continue reading Attorneys’ Fee Awards Can Exceed Fees Actually Billed →
This is the third in our series of recent case reports:
California Civil Code section 1747.08 (Song-Beverly Credit Act of 1971) prohibits retailers from requesting or requiring as a condition of accepting a credit card as payment that the cardholder provide “personal identification information” that is then recorded in some fashion. In Pineda v. Williams Sonoma (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524, 527-528, the Supreme Court held that a person’s ZIP code constitutes “personal identification information” within the meaning of CC section 1747.08.
Continue reading No In Camera Review of Bills and Time Entries →