ETHICS & ATTORNEY'S FEES CASES

• United Auto. Workers Local 259 v. Metro Auto Ctr.
• New Regency Prods., Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc.
• Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth
• El Escorial Owners' Ass'n v. DLC Plastering, Inc.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 04, 2007
United Auto. Workers Local 259 v. Metro Auto Ctr., No. 05-4974
A trial court must award interest under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(g)(2)(B) on an employer's delinquent contributions that were unpaid at the time a suit was filed but paid by the time of judgment. Also, proportionality does not necessarily limit mandatory fee awards in the ERISA context. An award of attorneys' fees for an action brought by a union pension and welfare fund against an employer pursuant to ERISA is affirmed as a motion for fees was timely and the fee award was reasonable. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 04, 2007
New Regency Prods., Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc., No. 05-55224
In an appeal arising from the arbitration of a contract dispute between a film production company and a film distribution company, a decision vacating an arbitration award is affirmed where vacatur by the district court for evident partiality" of the arbitrator was proper under the Federal Arbitration Act. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 04, 2007
Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth, No. 05-35627
To prove that a bundled discount was exclusionary or predatory for the purposes of a monopolization or attempted monopolization claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act, the plaintiff must establish that, after allocating the discount given by the defendant on the entire bundle of products to the competitive product or products, the defendant sold the competitive product or products below its average variable cost of producing them. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, September 06, 2007
El Escorial Owners' Ass'n v. DLC Plastering, Inc., No. B173829
In a construction defect action brought by a condominium association against defendants, a judgment partially in favor of plaintiff, a damages award against plaintiffs, and orders reducing attorney fees for prevailing defendants, are affirmed as: 1) plaintiff did not state a valid nuisance cause of action; 2) good faith settlement proceedings were adversarial and fair; 3) the trial court gave proper settlement credits to defendants; 4) the statutes of limitations were tolled pursuant to the Calderon Act and plaintiff's action was timely; 5) the trial court properly rejected defendant's claim that it was exempt from liability because it complied with the project's building plans; 6) the collateral source rule applied, defendant agreed to indemnify the builder; and 7) the court properly awarded plaintiff its expert fees as damages and did not abuse its discretion by reducing prevailing defendants' request for attorney's fees. Read more...