CA Pub. Decisions

Where attorney for administrator of estate was to be paid under fee agreement for total number of hours based on hourly rates regardless of outcome, and existence and value of assets in estate determined only whether fee award would be based on normal hourly rates or double those rates, fee agreement was not enforceable as a contingency fee agreement within meaning of Probate Code Sec. 10811(c), which permits an attorney for administrator of estate to be paid for extraordinary services under a contingency fee agreement if trial court approves agreement after a noticed hearing. Alternatively, attorney was not entitled to fees according to plain terms of agreement where creditors had significant interest in knowing about attorney's compensation before negotiating with estate to reduce amount of their claims, but trial court failed to give creditors notice of hearing on petition to approve fee agreement. Fee award of $200,000, as opposed to $1.25 million award that was requested, was just and reasonable where estate's assets did not exceed $700,000, and estate still owed $1.7 million to creditors.

Where attorney for administrator of estate was to be paid under fee agreement for total number of hours based on hourly rates regardless of outcome. Existence and value of assets in estate determined only whether fee award would be based on normal hourly rates or double those rates, fee agreement was not enforceable as a contingency fee agreement within meaning of Probate Code Sec. 10811(c), which permits an attorney for administrator of estate to be paid for extraordinary services under a contingency fee agreement if trial court approves agreement after a noticed hearing. Alternatively, attorney was not entitled to fees according to plain terms of agreement where creditors had significant interest in knowing about attorney's compensation before negotiating with estate to reduce amount of their claims, but trial court failed to give creditors notice of hearing on petition to approve fee agreement. Fee award of $200,000, as opposed to $1.25 million award that was requested, was just and reasonable where estate's assets did not exceed $700,000, and estate still owed $1.7 million to creditors.

In counties' action against railroad and chemical companies arising out of spillage of substantial quantities of calcium oxide into the environment, state requirement of immediate verbal notification of the spill and the imposition of a civil penalty for its violation; liability for remedial measures, such as abatement, cleanup, assessment and remediation of environmental injury; and consequential damages are not preempted by federal law. Imposition of civil penalties for the alleged failure to train employees and for the fact of the spillage itself are preempted by federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.

Where attorney for administrator of estate was to be paid under fee agreement for total number of hours based on hourly rates regardless of outcome, existence and value of assets in estate determined only whether fee award would be based on normal hourly rates or double those rates. Fee agreement was not enforceable as a contingency fee agreement within meaning of Probate Code Sec. 10811(c), which permits an attorney for administrator of estate to be paid for extraordinary services under a contingency fee agreement if trial court approves agreement after a noticed hearing. Alternatively, attorney was not entitled to fees according to plain terms of agreement where creditors had significant interest in knowing about attorney's compensation before negotiating with estate to reduce amount of their claims. But trial court failed to give creditors notice of hearing on petition to approve fee agreement. Fee award of $200,000, as opposed to $1.25 million award that was requested, was just and reasonable where estate's assets did not exceed $700,000, and estate still owed $1.7 million to creditors.

Where plaintiff offered evidence of medical expenses that were not actually paid. Trial court correctly denied motion in limine; while postverdict reduction of jury's award of medical expenses may be appropriate in those circumstances, defendant cannot prevent jury from hearing evidence regarding reasonable medical costs for plaintiff's care in the first instance. Defendant's failure to request that award of past medical expenses be determined by special verdict waived contention that damage award included medical expenses not actually paid or incurred.

Where plaintiff offered evidence of medical expenses that were not actually paid. Trial court correctly denied motion in limine; while postverdict reduction of jury's award of medical expenses may be appropriate in those circumstances, defendant cannot prevent jury from hearing evidence regarding reasonable medical costs for plaintiff's care in the first instance. Defendant's failure to request that award of past medical expenses be determined by special verdict waived contention that damage award included medical expenses not actually paid or incurred.

Where suit against law firm and individual attorney was stricken pursuant to anti-SLAPP motion. Law firm was represented by three of its own attorneys, firm could not recover attorney fees under anti-SLAPP statute, nor could individual attorney recover fees for work done on his own behalf. But fees could be awarded for work performed by an outside attorney retained by individual defendant as co-counsel.

Where suit against law firm and individual attorney was stricken pursuant to anti-SLAPP motion. Law firm was represented by three of its own attorneys, firm could not recover attorney fees under anti-SLAPP statute, nor could individual attorney recover fees for work done on his own behalf. But fees could be awarded for work performed by an outside attorney retained by individual defendant as co-counsel.

Insurer under an occurrence-based commercial general liability policy cannot avoid providing a defense to the insured condominium complex developer in a construction defect action by a condominium homeowners association solely because the homeowners association did not exist or did not own the damaged property during the policy period; critical question is when the property damage occurred, not when the homeowners association came into existence.

Insurer under an occurrence-based commercial general liability policy cannot avoid providing a defense to the insured condominium complex developer in a construction defect action by a condominium homeowners association solely because the homeowners association did not exist or did not own the damaged property during the policy period; critical question is when the property damage occurred, not when the homeowners association came into existence.

Insurer under an occurrence-based commercial general liability policy cannot avoid providing a defense to the insured condominium complex developer in a construction defect action by a condominium homeowners association solely because the homeowners association did not exist or did not own the damaged property during the policy period; critical question is when the property damage occurred, not when the homeowners association came into existence.

Insurer under an occurrence-based commercial general liability policy cannot avoid providing a defense to the insured condominium complex developer in a construction defect action by a condominium homeowners association solely because the homeowners association did not exist or did not own the damaged property during the policy period. A critical question is when the property damage occurred, not when the homeowners association came into existence.

Board of trustees of university system abused discretion when it approved environmental impact report--for expansion of small campus on former military base into a major institution that will enroll 25,000 students--that disclaimed responsibility for mitigating off-campus effects such as water drainage problems, increased water demand, increased traffic, increased wastewater, and increased need for fire protection because the only way to make such effects insignificant would be to improve the base's off-campus infrastructure to the extent called for by base's civilian governing authority's master plan.

Board of trustees of university system abused discretion when it approved environmental impact report--for expansion of small campus on former military base into a major institution that will enroll 25,000 students--that disclaimed responsibility for mitigating off-campus effects such as water drainage problems, increased water demand, increased traffic, increased wastewater, and increased need for fire protection because the only way to make such effects insignificant would be to improve the base's off-campus infrastructure to the extent called for by base's civilian governing authority's master plan.