Comments on: Who Knows Why Some Parties Appeal? http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/05/06/who-knows-why-some-parties-appeal/ Appellate Attorney Greg May on Practice and Developments in the Appellate Courts of California Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:33:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Greg May http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/05/06/who-knows-why-some-parties-appeal/comment-page-1/#comment-1934 Greg May Tue, 06 May 2008 16:05:33 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/?p=832#comment-1934 Transplanted, Well, that would seem to cover most of the bases! One other guess is that Profit Concepts might have been afraid that the fee determination would have preclusive effect on the Oklahoma action, i.e., that the Oklahoma court might dismiss on the ground that Griffith had already been determined to be the prevailing party. In fact, this "loss" might be exactly what they were looking for: an appellate opinion that explained the limited meaning of "prevailing," so as to foreclose preclusive effect. Transplanted,

Well, that would seem to cover most of the bases! One other guess is that Profit Concepts might have been afraid that the fee determination would have preclusive effect on the Oklahoma action, i.e., that the Oklahoma court might dismiss on the ground that Griffith had already been determined to be the prevailing party. In fact, this “loss” might be exactly what they were looking for: an appellate opinion that explained the limited meaning of “prevailing,” so as to foreclose preclusive effect.

]]> By: Transplanted Lawyer http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/05/06/who-knows-why-some-parties-appeal/comment-page-1/#comment-1922 Transplanted Lawyer Tue, 06 May 2008 13:38:47 +0000 http://www.calblogofappeal.com/?p=832#comment-1922 Two things may help explain this (and I'm just guessing here). First, we can assume that Profit Concepts knew what it was doing when it appealed. What it was looking for was to extend the pendency of its California dispute with Griffith for some reason -- it needed time. Time to complete a deal with a third party that Griffith was now competing for, possibly. Or prolong the fight to require Griffith to pay his attorneys a bunch more money, to wear him down regardless of the merits. Second, we can discard the assumption that Profit Concepts knew what it was doing and instead that it acted either on the basis of uninformed legal advice or out of emotion. Two things may help explain this (and I’m just guessing here). First, we can assume that Profit Concepts knew what it was doing when it appealed. What it was looking for was to extend the pendency of its California dispute with Griffith for some reason — it needed time. Time to complete a deal with a third party that Griffith was now competing for, possibly. Or prolong the fight to require Griffith to pay his attorneys a bunch more money, to wear him down regardless of the merits. Second, we can discard the assumption that Profit Concepts knew what it was doing and instead that it acted either on the basis of uninformed legal advice or out of emotion.

]]>