We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 16

HP Inkjet Printer Litigation: fee award fails to comply with provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • May 28 2013

In In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, 2013 DJDAR 6149 (2013) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the approval of an attorney's fee award


California Supreme Court allows "continuous accrual" doctrine to avoid statute of limitations for "unfair" UCL claim
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • January 24 2013

Seeking to clarify the extent to which the four-year statute of limitations applies to claims under the Unfair Competition Law, Business &


Crowdsourced workers: are they employees or independent contractors?
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • March 18 2013

What happens when modern innovations in the workforce (made possible by the advent of the internet) collide with traditional concepts of employment


Startups - deferred payment models for legal fees
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • March 7 2013

In our "Startup Blog" series, How to Select New Counsel and Manage Legal Fees, we have been discussing the early stages of how to hire a lawyer for


Court interprets settlement agreement to allow for fee recovery
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • May 28 2013

In Khavarian Enterprises Inc. v. Commline Inc.,2013 DJDAR 6107 (2013) the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District overruled the


Attorney fee award is appropriate based on successful forum non conveniens motion
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • December 15 2010

The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District recently decided a novel fee question


Assignee may pursue claim for indemnification for unreimbursed counsel fees
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • February 1 2011

In Searles Valley Minerals Operations Inc. v Ralph M. Parson Service Co., 2011 DJDAR 1193 (2011), the Fourth District Court of Appeal decided an interesting contract indemnity case dealing with a fee award


California Supreme Court again confirms a penalty is not restitution under the UCL
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • November 21 2010

Recently, we reported on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Clark v. Superior Court (National Western Life Insurance Company), wherein the Court confirmed that the only monetary remedy available under the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code section 17200 (the “UCL”) is restitution, and that a claim for treble damages is not restitution, nor is the nature of restitution comparable to a penalty


"Principal place of business" defined by Supreme Court in Hertz Corp vs. Melinda Friend
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • February 23 2010

In a decision closely watched by multi-state corporations, including those in the insurance industry, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that a company’s “principal place of business” is where “a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.”


Unfair Competition Law cases still occupy numerous spaces on the California Supreme Court's docket
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • February 4 2010

In November 2004, the voters of California passed Proposition 64, which was intended to rein in certain abuses in and bring some clarity to the Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et. seq. (“the UCL”