Lemon Law

Learn ethics in law

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-The court did not err in granting defendant consulting firm’s motion for attorneys’ fees and awards because while three attorneys and a partner worked on the relevant motions, it was standard for multiple attorneys to work on a single case at the same time and editing and revising documents were a common part of legal drafting. Also, the work conducted by the attorneys was time and labor intensive and reflective of the difficulty of the questions involved and skill required. Lastly, the award was also within the range of awards for anti-SLAPP motions in other cases.

Outcome

Motion for attorneys fees and awards granted.

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-Plaintiff/counter-defendant’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim’s breach of contract claim was denied because counterclaim alleged a plausible theory of damages; [2]-Motion to dismiss the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was granted because the counter-plaintiff could not simultaneously argue that the agreement did not exist and that a breach of good faith occurred; [3]-Motion to dismiss the claim for unjust enrichment was denied because it was appropriate for the counter-plaintiff to raise this claim as an alternative to its breach of contract claim; [4]-Motion to dismiss contractual indemnity claim was granted, with leave to amend, because the counterclaim complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to plausibly raise an inference that the liability for which it seeks indemnification falls within the scope of the indemnity clause. Appellant was represented by civil litigation lawyer.

Outcome

Plaintiff/counter-defendant’s motion to dismiss counterclaim granted in part and denied in part.

Tagged:

You Might Also Like