I think this might be something along the lines of adding insult to injury … Three months after a different Appeals Court upheld an award to a debt collector of $50,000 in attorney’s fees, another Appeals Court has affirmed the award of $19,651 to the collector after it was accused by a law firm of interfering with the attorney-client relationship between the firm and one of its clients.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Spielbauer v. Midland Funding can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant was sued for its alleged interference, and filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted. The plaintiff appealed the ruling, but did so after the 60-day deadline to file had passed. Then, the California Supreme Court denied a petition to review the case filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed three separate appeals from the underlying trial court action. In March, an Appeals Court upheld a ruling awarding the defendant nearly $50,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. In this case, the plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees that were incurred when defending the plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in sustaining an objection that disqualified a representative of the plaintiff’s as an expert, and that the trial court should have taken into consideration enforcement actions against the defendant and previous instances where the defendant had been “caught” seeking excessive fees.
For all three arguments, the Appeals Court said there was nothing to convince it that it should overrule the decisions of the trial court judge.
