Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

251-275 of 286 results

JAIME SANDOVAL VS FCA US LLC

The Court awards Plaintiff attorneysfees in the amount of $78,703.00 and costs in the amount of $12,155.18, for a total of $90,858.18. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2019

JOHN R ZAGORSKI VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Here, in light of the fact that Plaintiff recovered $78,490.10, Plaintiff is the prevailing party under the Song-Beverly Act. The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

FRANCISCO J MARTINEZ FRAGA ET AL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under the Song-Beverly Act, which allows a prevailing buyer to recover “attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2018

GORDON VS FCA US LLC

Based on the evidence presented, the court finds Plaintiffs are the prevailing party for purposes of the award of attorney's fees, costs and expenses under CC § 1794(d). The arguments Defendants raise are all as to the amount of fees. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084 sets forth the applicable analysis. [T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the "lodestar," i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GORDON VS FCA US LLC

Based on the evidence presented, the court finds Plaintiffs are the prevailing party for purposes of the award of attorney's fees, costs and expenses under CC § 1794(d). The arguments Defendants raise are all as to the amount of fees. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084 sets forth the applicable analysis. [T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the "lodestar," i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KEJIA SHAN ET AL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS KEJIA SHAN AND JING ZHUO’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 1974(d) Background This is a Lemon Law Action involving the purchase of a 2012 Chevrolet Equinox (the “Subject Vehicle”). The parties settled this action on April 2, 2019, when Plaintiffs Kejia Shan and Jing Zhuo (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) accepted an offer by Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 in the amount of $18,365.51.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITIES INC ET AL VS PHILIP BRADLEY PARKER

In addition to the foregoing award of attorneysfees, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneysfees incurred in any post judgment proceeding to enforce any judgment in connection with this Agreement. This paragraph is separate and several and shall survive the merger of this paragraph into any judgment. (Goldstein Decl. Ex. 3, at ¶ 17.7, emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2018

CHARLES E SACCIO VS ANTONIO R ROMASANTA

“On May 8, 2017, the Court awarded Attorneysfees, pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, in the sum of $355,320. “Post-judgment interest, on the original judgment of $545,577 from December 14, 2016 to May 8, 2017, pursuant to CCP § 685.010(a), 145 days at 10% per annum, is $21,885.22.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2017

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

KEVIN FRAMPTON VS MERIDITH BAER

The court previously found that the contract provided for attorney fees to the prevailing party and awarded fees to Meribear. Frampton argues that he is entitled to fees for this motion just as much as Meribear was in the first trial. But Frampton is not the prevailing party. Under Civil Code § 1717, “the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.”

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2012

CECILIA DUCKWORTH VS WEST HOLLYWOOD HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CE

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(b).) After judgment is entered, the prevailing party “who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

CECILIA DUCKWORTH VS WEST HOLLYWOOD HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CE

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(b).) After judgment is entered, the prevailing party “who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

WILLIAM MCCULLOUGH VS. FCA US LLC

The SOD concluded with the following observations: "Plaintiff is the prevailing party. Plaintiff is entitled to file a memorandum of costs and a motion for reasonable attorneys' fees. [As already noted, plaintiff was not present, but during the trial he had three or four lawyers at counsel table plus one or two more in the gallery. Only one lawyer (Mr. Wirtz) examined witnesses and argued the case.] The court will take this into account in analyzing attorneys' fees. See 569 East County Boulevard LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SANTA ANITA SHOPPINGTOWN LP VS URBAN HOME INC ET AL

“While section 1717, subdivision (a), entitles the prevailing party only to its reasonable attorney fees, allowing the trial court in its discretion ‘to exclude from a fee award the fees incurred by a prevailing party in making frivolous procedural maneuvers,’ the general rule remains that the prevailing party is entitled to all reasonable fees, without offset for interim victories by the other party.” (Dispute Suite.com, LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2019

SANTA ANITA SHOPPINGTOWN LP VS URBAN HOME INC ET AL

“While section 1717, subdivision (a), entitles the prevailing party only to its reasonable attorney fees, allowing the trial court in its discretion ‘to exclude from a fee award the fees incurred by a prevailing party in making frivolous procedural maneuvers,’ the general rule remains that the prevailing party is entitled to all reasonable fees, without offset for interim victories by the other party.” (Dispute Suite.com, LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2019

DARYL KUNGA VS AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES INC

At the same time, “[p]arties who litigate with no holds barred in cases such as this, in which the prevailing party is entitled to a fee award, assume the risk they will have to reimburse the excessive expenses they force upon their adversaries.” (Stokus v. Marsh (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 647, 653-654.) B. Discussion i.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARTIN MUNOZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

As such, Plaintiff—not its counsel—is entitled to a recover attorneysfees pursuant to the subject motion. Plaintiffs request an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,345.00, a lodestar multiplier of 1.5 in the amount of $5,672.50, and costs in the amount of $891.89.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KOHLMAN VS MUDGETT III

One such statute is Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b), which provides that a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right in any action or proceeding. See Bank of San Pedro v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 797, 800. Generally speaking, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4), the party with the net monetary recovery is the prevailing party; absent the impact of section 998, the court lacks discretion to deny prevailing party status to such a litigant. See Chinn v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FRASER RICHARDS LLC VS ABROLAT & ASSOCIATES PC ET AL

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396b(b), if an action is commenced in the wrong venue and a motion to transfer it to the correct venue is granted, the court may, in its discretion, order the payment to the prevailing party of reasonable expenses and attorneysfees incurred in making the motion.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2015

VANDALYN CRAYTON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Given that Plaintiff recovered $14,000, she is the prevailing party under the Song-Beverly Act. The determination of reasonable amount of attorney’s fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1134.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DARYL KUNGA VS AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES INC

“Parties who litigate with no holds barred in cases such as this, in which the prevailing party is entitled to a fee award, assume the risk they will have to reimburse the excessive expenses they force upon their adversaries.” (Stokus v. Marsh (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 647, 653-654.) B. Discussion i.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALKHOURI V PEDEN, ET AL

San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 992, 998.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2017

ELIZABETH VELADOR ET AL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Fee Motion Entitlement to Fees as Prevailing Party Undisputed. Reasonableness of Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses The calculation of attorneysfees under the Song-Beverly Act is based on the lodestar method, which multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154; Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 817-819.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WOODMAN V. DAY

Plaintiff accepted the Section 998 offer and judgment was entered on that offer on September 24, 2018. Plaintiff moves for the court to award $11,645 in attorney fees as the prevailing party on the CLRA action pursuant to the provisions of Civil Code, § 1780(e) and $1,479.72 in costs.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

KENNEDY V P31

AttorneysFees and Costs a. General Standards Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 480 held that a fee award in a class action could be determined fair and reasonable based on a percentage of the fund calculation or use of the lodestar method. The two methods can also be used to cross-check each other.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KATHLEEN FRY ET AL VS PACIFICA OF THE VALLEY CORP ET AL

On May 30, 2017, this court sustained Northridge’s Demurrer as to the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action without leave to amend, and granted its motion to strike as to the prayers for punitive damages, general damages, restitution, treble damages, and attorneysfees.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

  « first    1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.