#Diskkeeper pro reviews trial#
On March 6, 2013, the trial court denied Diskeeper s motion, concluding that under the controlling statutes and rules of court, a memorandum of costs must be filed in order to establish an entitlement to costs, including attorney fees. Diskeeper s reply maintained that rule 3.1702 of the California Rules of Court (rule 3.1702), which regulates the recovery of contractual attorney fees, imposes no requirement of a memorandum of costs. In opposing the motion, respondents contended that Diskeeper had filed no memorandum of costs, as specified in rule 3.1700 of the California Rules of Court (rule 3.1700).
#Diskkeeper pro reviews code#
3 Relying on Civil Code section 1717 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, Diskeeper requested attorney fees totaling $183,419, plus $878 for other costs and expenses. 1 Although the arbitrator found that Diskeeper had prevailed against both Godelman and Kaufman, he concluded that it was appropriate to assess the damages, fees, costs, and expenses solely against Kaufman. On January 31, 2013, Diskeeper filed a motion for an award of attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party in the arbitration confirmation proceeding. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the judgment (Kaufman v. On December 14, 2012, the court entered a judgment in favor of Diskeeper, from which respondents noticed an appeal. Following a hearing, the trial court confirmed the arbitration award. Diskeeper opposed the petitions and motions, and filed a motion to confirm the award. They later filed an amended petition and motions to vacate the award. The arbitrator further determined that Diskeeper was entitled to $70,000 in damages, $297,000 in attorney fees, and $88,034.69 in costs and expenses.1 In May 2012, appellants filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award. On April 4, 2012, the arbitrator issued his final award, concluding, inter alia, that Godelman had breached his duty to return Diskeeper s property, and that Kaufman had breached his nondisclosure obligations. Diskeeper asserted claims against respondents for breach of the settlement agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. In January 2011, Diskeeper commenced an arbitration, alleging that respondents Godelman and Kaufman had failed to comply with their obligations under the settlement agreement to return some documents and not to disclose their contents.
brought for the interpretation or enforcement of the agreement. The agreement also contained an attorney fee provision, which provided for a fee award to the prevailing party in 2 any litigation, arbitration, or other proceeding. Other terms of the agreement obliged the parties to submit disputes to binding arbitration. The settlement agreement required Godelman and LeShay to return Diskeeper s property, including enumerated records, and imposed nondisclosure obligations on them and Kaufman. Later, in 2009, Godelman and LeShay entered into a settlement of their action against Diskeeper. Kaufman, an attorney, represented Godelman and LeShay in the action. In 2007, Godelman and LeShay initiated a lawsuit against Diskeeper in which Godelman asserted claims for wrongful termination. After LeShay resigned from his position, Diskeeper terminated Godelman. In 2006, Diskeeper hired respondent Alexander Godelman as its Chief Information Officer, and also hired Marc LeShay, who worked as Godelman s subordinate.
#Diskkeeper pro reviews software#
Diskeeper is a software company located in Burbank. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This is the second time this case has come before us on appeal. We therefore reverse the court s ruling and remand for further proceedings. Specifically, we hold that a party seeking attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 need not, in addition to filing a noticed motion, file a memorandum of costs. We conclude that Diskeeper s contention is correct. Diskeeper contends the court improperly denied the award on the ground that Diskeeper filed no memorandum of costs in seeking the award. Appellant Diskeeper Corporation (Diskeeper) challenges the trial court s denial of a contract-based award of attorney fees following the confirmation of an arbitration award. Sedor and An Nguyen Ruda Jones Day, Elwood Lui and Peter E. Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, Louise Ann Fernandez, Dan P. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Kevin C. DISKEEPER CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. KAUFMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, B248151 (Los Angeles County Super. Filed 8/21/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR BARRY B.
0 kommentar(er)
