A Blast From the Past

May 25, 2011

Circa 1985

The 1980’s was a good decade for a lot of things:  new wave music, cheesy movies, nuclear proliferation, and apparently hair.

Advertisements

California Court of Appeal Affirms: No Attorney Fees in Anti-SLAPP Cases Where Law Firm is Represented by an Associate

May 17, 2011

CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN et al., v. PAUL COHEN et al.,

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five.

Filed May 10, 2011.

         The trial court in granting defendants’ request to strike plaintiffs’ memorandum of costs seeking attorney fees incurred as the prevailing parties in a prior appeal, a law firm and its two partners, by using an associate in the law firm, had, in effect, represented themselves in the prior appeal. In this appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting the motion to tax costs because the attorney who represented them on appeal was not a partner and otherwise had no financial interest in their law firm. Also, plaintiffs contend that, even if the law firm plaintiff cannot recover fees for the legal services of the associate, the individual plaintiffs can recover fees attributable to that associate’s services rendered on their behalf.

        In affirming the order denying plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees for services rendered by the associate to the firm and its partners, we hold that (1) substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the attorney who represented plaintiffs in the prior appeal was doing so as an associate of the law firm and not as an independent contractor, and, therefore, plaintiffs legally are not entitled to an award of attorney fees; and (2) the trial court was justified in concluding that based on the record, the individual plaintiffs could not recover attorney fees in connection with the appeal because there was no showing of any distinction between the cross-claims against the law firm plaintiff and those against the individual plaintiffs.

Read the full opinion here.


Foreign Manufacturers are Offshore But Not Out of Reach

May 2, 2011

Pratt’s Journal of Bankruptcy Law May/June 2011

By David J. Cook

This article discusses post judgment strategies to reach the assets of uncooperative, distant, or reclusive judgment debtors.

Read the full article here.


Disentitlement of the Debtor from Judicial Proceedings Defiant to the End

May 2, 2011

Debt3 March/April 2011

By David Cook

Ray Charles taught us disentitlement: “Hit the road, Jack, and don’t you come back no more, no more, no more, no more.” Disentitlement offers the nuclear remedy to compel payment, if possible, from the recalcitrant debtor — and, like “Jack” in Ray Charles’ wonderful song, hits the road. This article is a primer on civil disentitlement.

Read the full article here.


The Discretionary Stay Against Enforcement of a Judgment

May 2, 2011

Los Angeles Lawyer, April 2011
by David J. Cook

The race to enforcement begins as soon as a judgment creditor wins a lawsuit. While typically the plaintiff, a judgment creditor can also be the defendant in an anti-SLAPP suit. In either situation, the judgment creditor can begin enforcement procedures immediately upon entry of judgment and can go so far as to direct the sheriff to appear at the defendant’s front door, break it down, and seize the contents from floor to ceiling, including the family dog. Only settlement, posting of an expensive appeal bond, or entry of a discretionary stay of enforcement by the trial court can prevent enforcement.
Continue reading the full article here.


OFFSHORE IS NOT OUT OF TOUCH

March 16, 2011

Originally published in Debt3, Vol. 26, Issue No. 1, January/February 2011

Knock-off, counterfeit items, forgeries and fakes can be found everywhere from New York City alleyways to online stores. How can the law help manufacturers fight back?

View the article here.


Intervention by the Peterson Plaintiffs in Rubin v. Iran

February 4, 2011

The Rubin family levied upon the antiquities collection owned by Iran in the hands of the Oriental institute of the University of Chicago.  The Peterson plaintiffs survivors and family members of the marine barracks bombing successfully intervened.  As of February 2011, the seventh circuit is considering jurisdictional challenges.

View the minute order here