§

Nimmagadda v. Krishnamurthy

3 Cal.App.4th 1505 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)
Nimmagadda v. Krishnamurthy

6 Citing cases

  1. Siligo v. Castellucci

    21 Cal.App.4th 873 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 52 times
    In Siligo, the court acknowledged that California law was settled that an obligation to pay attorney fees incurred in enforcing a contract " 'includes attorneys' fees incurred in defending against a challenge to the underlying validity of the obligation.' "

    . . ." ( Nimmagadda v. Krishnamurthy (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1509 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 351].) The judgment and order of sale is reversed and the matter is remanded.

  2. Gastelum v. ReMax Int'l, Inc.

    244 Cal.App.4th 1016 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 18 times
    In Gastelum, the arbitrator had already dismissed the arbitration and there was no pending cross-motion to compel resumption of the arbitration.

    The general list of appealable civil judgments and orders is codified in section 904.1. (See Walton v. Mueller (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 161, 172, fn. 9, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 605; Nimmagadda v. Krishnamurthy (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1507, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 351.) Nothing in section 904.1 expressly identifies an order setting aside a litigation stay as appealable.

  3. Pacific Corporate Group Holdings, LLC v. Keck

    232 Cal.App.4th 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Thus, the trial court's attorney fee order is not appealable. (See Nimmagadda v. Krishnamurthy(1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1505, Section 904.1, subdivision (a)(2) provides that an appeal may be taken from “an order made after a judgment.”

  4. Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto

    No. H034169 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2011)

    Attorney fees in the present context are generally deemed an item of costs, and were claimed as such by plaintiff. (See Nimmagadda v. Krishnamurthy (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1508 [citing Stockton Theaters in connection with fee award].) It follows that such a fee award, if governed by California law, earns interest only from the date of the award, not the date of the judgment.

  5. Sander v. State Bar of California

    No. A124884 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2009)

    The order thus contemplates further judicial action before the appellants’ rights are settled. The court made it clear that denial of intervention was interlocutory and that further judicial action would finally determine the rights of the parties. (SeeNimmagadda v. Krishnamurthy (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1509 [conditional award of attorney fees not final for purposes of appeal].) As this case does not fall into any of the exceptions that allow appeal of an interlocutory order (see Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2009) [¶][¶] 2:117 to 2:122, pp. 2-66 to 2-67), it must be dismissed.

  6. Barton v. Rpost International

    No. B214665 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2009)

    The present matter is not appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 906; Barnes v. Litton Systems, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 681, 685; Nimmagadda v. Krishnamurthy (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1509-1510.) The appeal is dismissed without prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 913.)