In plaintiffs’ action against various defendants based on construction defects in their new house raising issues regarding the availability of attorney’s fees, decision of the court of the appeals affirming the trial court’s judgment is affirmed as the majority in Wakefield v. Bohlin, 145 Cal.App.4th 963 (2006), erred by misinterpreting the plain language of “net monetary recovery” and by concluding that settlement offsets do not otherwise affect whether a party has such a “net monetary recovery.” Therefore, the plaintiffs here, ordered to take nothing against nonsettling defendants due to a settlement offset, did not obtain a “net monetary recovery” for purposes of the prevailing party determination.
Read Goodman v. Lozano, No. S162655 [HTML]
Read Goodman v. Lozano, No. S162655 [PDF]
Appellate Information
Filed February 4, 2010
Judges
Opinion by Judge Chin
CounselFor Appellant: Silverstein & Huston, Steven A. Silverstein, Mark W. Huston and Robert I. Cohen
For Appellee: Law Offices of Craig D. Weinstein Craig D. Weinstein; Spierer, Woodward, Corbalis & Goldberg and Stephen B. Goldberg
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
