163 results for 'cat:"Attorney Fees" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Tenney holds that a contractor's preliminary lien notice was not timely but the trial court must determine the value of work it performed after the notice, which may support a claim under the savings statute. On remand, the trial court may consider the lien, as well as any related contract claims, in determining the prevailing party for any attorney fee award, and it should use the flexible and reasoned approach. Reversed in part.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Tenney, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: 20210847-CA, Categories: Construction, attorney Fees, contract
J. Gravois finds that the trial court properly granted a judge's motion for summary judgment on an individual's claim that the judge conspired with a law clerk to destroy court documents in another suit that the individual was a party to in the same court. The judge testified that he never observed the law clerk mishandle any court documents, and the individual did not present direct evidence that the law clerk destroyed the documents. The complaints against the law clerk were investigated, and there were no eyewitness accounts of the destruction of the documents. Further, the trial court properly granted the law clerk's motion for attorney fees because there was no evidence showing a "willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding." Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Gravois, Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: 22-CA-592, Categories: Evidence, attorney Fees, contract
J. Peterson partially grants the father's motion for attorney fees and costs in a lawsuit against his son and others involving a dispute between family over ownership of a company that runs multiple car dealerships. The father is awarded one-third of his total request for attorney fees, which will amount to $204,402, and he is also awarded $60,033 in costs, bringing his total award to $264,435.
Court: USDC Western District of Wisconsin, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: 3:19cv980, NOS: Stockholders’ Suits - Contract, Categories: Fiduciary Duty, attorney Fees, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
[Consolidated.] J. Easton finds that a business owner was improperly awarded attorney fees after the partnership in which he purchased and resold properties had soured because the contract did not expressly provide attorney fees, and the record was insufficient to consider the claim. Reversed.
Court: Kentucky Court Of Appeals, Judge: Easton, Filed On: December 8, 2023, Case #: 2022-CA-1261-MR, Categories: attorney Fees, contract
J. Carlyle finds that the lower court improperly rendered judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to attorney fees in this suit concerning a Rule 11 settlement agreement. The appellee failed to timely object to the evidence regarding fees. Accordingly, her segregation complaint was waived. Also, the evidence sufficiently supported the award. Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Carlyle, Filed On: December 8, 2023, Case #: 05-23-00080-CV, Categories: Evidence, attorney Fees, contract
J. Slaughter grants Wells Fargo $10,700 in attorney fees for its complaint accusing Brian Lam, acting on behalf of himself and the investment advisory company, of not paying for his deposited demand drafts in his Wells Fargo account. The requested hourly rates for Wells Fargo's attorneys, which range from $145 to $408 an hour, are reasonable because each attorney has a relevant amount of experience and submits justified time entries.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Slaughter, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1277, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: attorney Fees, contract
J. Staton partially grants the consumer's motion for attorney fees following a settlement for her complaint accusing Mercedes-Benz of selling her an irreparably defective 2019 Mercedes-Benz GLC350E4, which had problems with the air conditioning system. The consumer's counsel receives a reduced hourly rate of $515 because his requested rate of $650 is higher than the average. The requested fees are also reduced due several excessive or duplicative time entries and block-billing, leaving the total award at $13,816.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Staton, Filed On: December 6, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv6032, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Warranty, attorney Fees, contract
J. Mendheim finds the circuit court properly ruled that sellers of a hemophilia company had the right to enforce payment of a promissory note. The debtors' argument that the sellers did not prove who possessed the note is without merit. The case is remanded to allow further explanation of the calculation of the attorney fees and expenses. Affirmed in part.
Court: Alabama Supreme Court, Judge: Mendheim, Filed On: December 1, 2023, Case #: SC-2023-0058 , Categories: Business Practices, attorney Fees, contract
J. Breedlove finds that the lower court properly entered a directed verdict in favor of the law firm on the client's counterclaims for deceptive trade practices and usury. The law firm sued the client for breach of contract, seeking to recover certain fees. The lower court did not err by failing to submit the client's counterclaims to the jury. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Breedlove, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: 05-22-01285-CV, Categories: attorney Fees, contract
J. Staton partially grants the consumers' motion for attorney fees for their complaint asserting that Mercedes-Benz USA sold them a vehicle with serious defects, including “powertrain system defects, engine defects and other serious nonconformities.” The consumers' counsel submits reasonably detailed billing records for 30.7 attorney hours for three attorneys, but their claim that their possibly delayed time spent on a $59,000 settlement offer does not justify the costs incurred after Jul. 10, 2023, when MBUSA removed this case to federal court.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Staton, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv5532, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Settlements, attorney Fees, contract
J. Robart awards the steel framing manufacturer $594,500 in attorney fees and $135,600 in costs, and awards Clarkwestern Dietrich Building Systems LLC $766,600 in attorney fees and $48,500 in costs, for the steel framing manufacturer's complaint that the company founder and others violated a patent order by infringing on the steel framing manufacturer's products.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Robart, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 2:18cv659, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Patent, attorney Fees, contract
J. Selna awards the cigarillo company $10.2 million in attorney fees and $613,100 in disbursements for its complaint that the tobacco company violated various federal and state competition laws and breached the private label agreements between the two parties. The cigarillo company cites reasonable hours to justify the award, but it also cites excludable clerical work and other worked hours, so not all requested hours are accepted.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Selna, Filed On: November 17, 2023, Case #: 8:14cv1664, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: Antitrust, attorney Fees, contract
J. Immergut grants the recreational vehicle manufacturing company $14,800 in attorney fees and $8,100 in costs for the family's lawsuit alleging that the company sold them a defective RV. The RV manufacturing company's requested rates for their attorneys and paralegals are reasonable, because the rates the RV manufacturing company seeks are below the average rates for attorneys with the same experience in the same region, while the requested paralegal rates do not exceed that of a first-year associate.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Immergut, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv1123, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Warranty, attorney Fees, contract
J. Mullen grants Mercedes-Benz Financial Services' default judgment on its counterclaims against a car buyer for failure to make payment on a car he purchased, claiming a case of identity theft. The police report the buyer presented regarding his identity was found to be fraudulent, and it has been established that he did in fact sign a contract to purchase the vehicle and never made a payment. Mercedes-Benz repossessed the car and now the buyer owes it over $27,000 in car payments and legal fees.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Mullen, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv345, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, attorney Fees, contract
J. Menendez partially grants the trucking company's motion for attorney fees and costs in its breach-of-contract suit against a logistics broker alleging failures to pay for hauling services. While the motion was filed after a deadline, it is not denied as untimely since the delay was minimal, did not prejudice the broker, and does not appear to have been a result of bad faith. Additionally, unlawful covenants in a non-competition agreement the broker sought to enforce in its defense are not ancillary to the party's other agreement, and therefore do not entitle the trucking company to fees under a Texas law's fee-shifting provision. The trucking company is entitled to just over $72,000 in pre-judgment interest and some amount of post-judgment interest, to be determined by agreement of the parties if possible.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Menendez, Filed On: November 14, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv2538, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: attorney Fees, contract
J. Yarbrough grants, in part, the baler manufacturing company's motion to compel discovery, ruling the former employee must provide more detailed responses to several interrogatories, including his involvement with the development and production of a baler over which he attempted to assert ownership. However, because the employee and other defendants were granted an extension after initially failing to respond to the first set of discovery requests, the manufacturing company is not entitled to attorney fees related to this motion.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Yarbrough, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv99, NOS: Copyrights - Property Rights, Categories: Discovery, attorney Fees, contract
J. Chambers, on remand from the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, awards $343,871 in attorney fees and costs to the automotive dealer for the work "necessary to obtain payment of the insurance proceeds" following a settlement reached prior to trial in the dealer's breach of contract claim against its insurance carrier for denying coverage for the fraudulent purchase of a car.
Court: USDC Southern District of West Virginia, Judge: Chambers, Filed On: November 1, 2023, Case #: 3:19cv477, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, attorney Fees, contract
J. Mikva finds that the lower court properly denied the contractor's request for postjudgment interest and attorneys fees after an arbitrator awarded the contractor $41,000 in a dispute with homeowners over the construction of a custom home. While the contractor was successful in arbitration, its subsequent litigation has not been successful or changed the outcome of this case in any substantial way, so it cannot be considered the prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Mikva, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: 220973, Categories: Damages, attorney Fees, contract
J. Jones finds the lower court erroneously determined the prevailing party on a claim-by-claim basis. Recent revisions to Colorado law require a court to determine the prevailing party for the action as a whole; therefore, the case must be remanded for the court to reallocate the award of attorney fees based on its proper determination the unit owner prevailed on its declaratory judgment claim against the owners association. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Jones, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: 2023COA99, Categories: attorney Fees, contract
J. Hixson finds the trial court properly denied a law firm’s motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the truth in this suit brought on claims that the other firm breached a fee-sharing agreement. The motion to amend could have been requested at various points during the 13-year process of litigation. Though, being it is undisputed that an involved attorney was accommodated with an office at the law firm, instead of denying his unjust enrichment claim because of the finding that there was no enforceable contract, the court should have considered the evidence and decided on the basis of proper standards. Because the court of appeals reverses on direct appeal, it declines to address the other firm’s argument on cross appeal concerning the court’s denial of attorney fees. Affirmed in part on direct appeal. Reversed and remanded in part on direct appeal. Cross appeal dismissed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hixson, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: CV-20-213, Categories: Fiduciary Duty, attorney Fees, contract
J. Hixson finds the circuit court improperly granted summary judgment to the law firm, finding that the breach of a fee-sharing contract claims brought by the other law firm are barred after an initial case resulted in the court’'s finding that no contract existed. The law firm’s claim that it was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of res judicata is misplaced, as the original suit resulted in the finding that no contract existed. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hixson, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: CV-21-276, Categories: Due Process, attorney Fees, contract
J. Brown finds the county court properly entered the post-divorce order requiring the father to pay 25% of his bonuses but not his commissions and crediting payments made directly to the mother against arrearage. Because payments made were in accordance with court-ordered child support, they were not voluntary payments for which the father is not entitled to credit. And though the wife did not prevail on all matters, the court’s award of attorney fees to her is not an abuse of discretion. The husband offers no support for his claim that the award was related to the difference between the parties’ income. Affirmed on direct and cross appeal.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Brown, Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: CV-21-503, Categories: Family Law, attorney Fees, contract