Legal Opinion

Saben, Earlix & Associates v. Fillet

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 9, 2005No. G034572PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOORE, J.

In a complicated litigation matter involving several parties, the trial court refused to consider an attorney fee motion, finding that the motion was untimely filed. The court erroneously determined that the entry of an order granting summary judgment triggered the running of the time limit for the filing of the attorney fee motion, under California Rules of Court, rule 870.2(b)(1), even though no summary judgment had ever been entered. However, an order granting summary judgment is not an appealable order and the entry of the order did not trigger the attorney fee motion…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Stonewall Insurance v. City of Palos Verdes EstatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  2. Hill v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Modica v. MerinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. Allabach v. Santa Clara County Fair Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1996
  5. Jacobs-Zorne v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Thompson v. IoaneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  2. Kasparian v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
  3. Davis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. Chen v. Valstock Ventures, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
  5. Chen v. Valstock Ventures, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API