Cross-defendant completion costs pursuant

Defendant contractor and cross-defendant surety appealed the order of the Contra Costa County Superior Court (California), which awarded cross-defendant completion costs pursuant to an indemnification agreement and awarded defendant damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees and costs for a breach of contract and interference with prospective economic relations.

Defendant contractor business acquisition lawyer was terminated from a public works project. Cross-defendant surety recovered completion costs from defendant under their indemnification agreements executed in connection with performance bonds. Defendant recovered on its tort and breach of contract claims. Both parties appealed. The court reversed in part as to the tort claim of interference with prospective economic relations, struck the award of prejudgment interest, and directed judgment for cross-defendant. Visit employee rights attorney Los Angeles to know all about employee rights in Los Angeles California.

The court held that cross-defendant's reporting of defendant's "in claim" status to other sureties and reinsurers was not wrongful conduct, but standard business practice. The court remanded for a recalculation of reasonable costs and fees to be awarded to the prevailing party on each independent contract enforced and not on net recovery in the litigation as a whole. The court affirmed in part, because the trial court properly found that cross-defendant was entitled to indemnification for the takeover expenses incurred in good faith and not for settlement costs; read portions of its earlier findings to the jury in the bifurcated trial; and approved the method of calculating lost profits.

The court reversed in part, remanded for a recalculation of attorney fees and costs, struck the prejudgment interest award, and directed judgment for cross-defendant surety, who committed no wrongful conduct to support defendant contractor's claim for interference with prospective economic relations. The court affirmed defendant's award for breach of contract and cross-defendant's indemnification for takeover expenses incurred in good faith.

Following the approval of a settlement in class action litigation against defendants vitamin manufacturers in the Superior Court of San Francisco County (California), plaintiff class member objected to the proposed award of attorney's fees and costs. The trial court approved the proposed award, and the class member appealed.

The settlement resolved 34 class actions, and at least 52 law firms sought fees. The appellate court held the trial court had to review whether costs attributable to all counsel, especially those counsel in the cases in which more than three firms represented the plaintiff, materially contributed to the settlement achieved, as the matter was ably handled from the beginning by a smaller number of firms. It also had to review whether co-liaison counsel for the class could adjust fee awards to any counsel, rather than distribute the award according to the lodestar used by the trial court in calculating the award. Review of the reasonableness of the $ 1,000 per hour fee charged by one attorney was required. Considering the risks which were or were not involved in the case, the trial court had to consider if the multiplier of two, which it applied to the lodestar figure it arrived at, was appropriate, as the risks appeared relatively slight, considering the admission by several manufacturers to related criminal allegations, a resolution short of trial, and the facts that very few motions were filed and little, if any, merits discovery took place.The trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs was reversed, and the matter was remanded.