Sentences with phrase «fee award reversed»

Fee award reversed.

Fee award reversed as a matter of law.

Cost award affirmed; fees award reversed.

Not exact matches

«Construction Litigation: Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Fee Awards Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1038 and Reverses / Affirms Others Under Civil Code Section 1717 Main California Supreme Court Refuses To Depublish Bernardi Decision»

In a complicated construction dispute between window subcontractor and other construction professionals sued for equitable indemnity and contribution, the Fourth District, Division 1 reversed and affirmed some fee awards against window subcontractor after overturning a judgment on the pleadings, affirming a summary judgment as to one party, and giving effect to a prior appellate decision overturning judgments in favor of the parties sued by window subcontractor.

-- authored by Circuit Judge Hurwitz [majority decision] and concurring opinion by Circuit Judge Reinhardt; discussed in our Oct. 10, 2015 post: District court in Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act case which substantially reduced fee request was reversed based upon its reliance on inapt practice area hourly rates, upon its discounts for plaintiff's attorneys not delegating tasks to associates given that only small firms prosecuted these type of cases, and upon its use of stale prior fee awards involving fee claimant's attorneys.

Earlier, a SLAPP grant was reversed, which mean that the $ 37,857.97 fees / costs award went POOF!

Reversed so that trustee could seek recovery of attorney's fees and costs, with the fee and costs awards to plaintiff going POOF!

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit not only reversed the jury verdict, but also directed that our client be awarded monetary damages plus attorney's fees and costs.

The July 2, 2014 Supreme Court opinion in Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 759 S.E. 2d 419 (2014), completely reverses the prior Court of Appeals opinion and reinstates family court's alimony, property division and attorney fee award.

2014), reversed a $ 5,000 attorney fee award the family court made to Mother despite Father prevailing on the contested issue of which child support worksheet to use.

Because the Court of Appeals reversed Wife's award of equitable distribution it also reversed the award of attorney's fees.

Although this ruling was reversed on appeal, the appellate court directed entry of an attorney's fees award of only $ 1.4 million, based on the trial court's alternative finding that the prevailing party was not entitled to several million dollars in legal fees.

However, the fee award was reversed and remanded because the magistrate judge only awarded $ 51,363.81 out of a requested $ 328,077.50 in fees — about 15 % of the requested amount.

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal such that the fees / costs award went POOF!

(If you go to our category «Indemnity,» the reviewing court discussed cases like Myers, Building Maintenance Service (BMS), Baldwin Builders, and Continental Heller in reversing the fee award in plaintiffs» favor.)

Because the District Court had allowed all of the fees beyond the specified date to be awarded on a blanket basis, without more granular analysis, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a re-analysis of which of the plaintiffs» attorney's fees and costs were causally linked with Goodyear's misconduct in withholding the testing records.

Rather, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to correct the standard applied with regard to what amount of fees should be awarded for the sanction.

However, the appellate court did find that the award of nearly $ 150,000 in attorneys» fees was not appropriate, and it reversed the lower court on that issue alone.

We are asking the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court's excessive award of $ 15 million in attorneys» fees to class counsel for obtaining a settlement that provides class members with $ 2 to $ 5 million in benefits.

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.»

It reversed a fees award to a prevailing party because a permanent injunction was reversed such that prevailing party status had to be determined at a later point rather than hinging it only on an interim victory.

Eighth Circuit Reverses Nearly $ 4.7 Million Fee Award Against EEOC, But Prevailing Party Issue Looks To Predominate.

«Civil Rights: Plaintiffs Successfully Challenging Anti-Gang Injunction Have Substantial Fee Award Of Over $ 3.2 Million Affirmed Main Costs: $ 107,292.56 Costs Award Reversed Based On 2005 Final Judgment Providing Each Side Bears Own Costs»

The award was reversed because the trial judge was unaware of a capped $ 6,000 fee arrangement between ex-wife and her counsel, it was unclear if consideration was given to any net income received by husband from assets, and it was unclear if the trial court considered wife's monthly income.

However, after determining that separate property and pre-separation community income fiduciary breaches could not give rise to sanctions under Family Code section 1101 and reversing 4 of 16 listed fiduciary duty violations, the Sixth District determined that section 1101 (g), a mandatory fee statute, could not support a fee award as far as the 4 reversed breaches were concerned.

The appellate court believed this was the fair thing to do, review the fee award and reverse it based on husband's change in financial situation.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, affirmed the jury's monetary award but reversed the punitive damage and attorney fee awards.

The court agreed with the Broker, and so the court reversed the trial court's award of punitive damages and attorney fees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury award for fraudulent concealment, but reversed the punitive damage award and attorney fees award, ruling that the Broker could not be liable for violations of the Act because of the property disclosure law.