Author name: Marc Alexander

Probate, Section 1717: Section 1717 Prevailing Party Attorney Fees Of $84,402 Awarded To Plaintiff Pursuant To Trust’s No-Contest Clause Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717

No Basis For Fees Under No-Contest Clause Because Trust And Its Terms Were Not Contested, And Plaintiff Forfeited Argument For Fees Under Prob. Code § 17211(b) By Not Raising It Below.             In Haley v. Konatich, Case No. A160725 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 29, 2021) (unpublished), three siblings were the beneficiaries of their late […]

Family Law: Section 271 Sanction Of $85,000 Reversed And Remanded For Determination Of Whether Imposition Of Sanction Would Constitute An Unreasonable Financial Burden

Cases: Family Law

Before Issuing Sanctions Under Family Code § 271, A Trial Court Is Required To Consider The Parties’ Incomes, Assets And Liabilities, And Cannot Impose Sanctions That Constitute An Unreasonable Financial Burden On The Sanctioned Party.             In Marriage of Luu and Avritch, Case No. A161935 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 29, 2021) (unpublished), the trial

Probate: Attorney Fees And Costs Awarded Under § 17211(b) Against Trustee, Who Opposed Petition For An Accounting, Affirmed On Appeal – Along With Denial Of Trustee’s Request For Fees Under § 15684

Cases: Probate

Trustee’s Opposition To Remainder Beneficiaries’ Petition For An Accounting Was Without Reasonable Cause And Was In Bad Faith.             Trust beneficiaries normally – even if they prevail – pay their own attorney fees when challenging a trustee’s conduct.  However, as the saying goes, there is an exception to every rule. Pursuant to Prob. Code §

Landlord/Tenant: 2/4 DCA Affirms Denial Of LARSO Statutory Damages And Attorney Fees To Prevailing Tenant, And Affirms Award To Tenant Of Only $500 In Fees, Out Of The $71,000 Incurred, Pursuant To Amendment Capping Fees In Parties’ Lease

Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Tenant Failed To Assert Claims For Statutory Damages And Fees Under LARSO In The Lawsuit As Required, And The Fees Cap Was Valid.             In 510PacificAve v. Weiss, Case No. B304369 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 29, 2021) (unpublished), owner of an apartment building in Venice served tenant with notice of a 25% rent increase

Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Third Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms Denial Of Fees Where Wage/Hour Plaintiffs Had Limited Success And Fee Petition Was Not Properly Documented

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiffs Only Recovered $6,601 Out Of Requested $180,000 In Damages And Attorneys Sought $118,569 In Fees.             In Wang v. Chapei, LLC, Case No. 20-2975 (3d Cir. June 10, 2021) (nonprecendential), two wage/hour plaintiffs had their federal claim dismissed, were unsuccessful on class certification tries, and won about $6,601 out

Private Attorney General: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Denial Of § 1021.5 Attorney Fees To Plaintiff Achieving A Significant Public Benefit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Third District Applied The Standard For Determining Necessity Of Private Enforcement, Where The Attorney General Performs Its Function, Set Forth In Committee to Defend.             After the Attorney General filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandate alleging defendant violated the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Rivers

Appeal Sanctions, Probate: 4/1 DCA Grants Brothers’ Request For $25,087.91 In Appeal Sanctions Against Sisters And Orders Sisters To Pay Additional $8,500 Sanction To The Clerk Of The Court

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Probate

Sisters Were Previously Found To Be “Vexatious Litigants” Under Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b), Forfeited Claims On Appeal By Failing To Raise Them In The Trial Court And Failing To Follow Appellate Procedures, And Sought To Relitigate Claims Previously Decided By The Appellate Panel.             Family members were involved in disputes over their deceased mother’s

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Partner Winning Dispute Against Other Partner Over Existence Of A Partnership Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Corporations Code Section 16041(c)

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Intra-Partner Dispute Not Covered By The Statute.             In SCSA Group, Inc. v. Worden, Case No. G058859 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 28, 2021) (unpublished), one partner prevailing in an intra-partner dispute about the existence of a partnership sought attorney’s fees from the losing partner under Corporations Code section 16041(c).  The trial judge denied

Lodestar, SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Pasternack Decision Now Published

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Acceptance Of A Reduced Rate From Client Does Not Preclude Attorney From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method.             In our June 10, 2021 post, we discussed Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) which was unpublished at the time.  Pasternack follows other California decisions

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: 4/3 DCA Affirms $2 Million Section 1717 Fee Award To Plaintiff And $4.6 Million Section 1717 Fee Award To Defendant

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Two Separate Contracts Were At Issue – With Plaintiff Prevailing On The Asset Purchase Agreement And Defendant Prevailing On The Employment Contract.             In Colaco v. Cavotec SA, Case NO. G059418 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 24, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiffs corporation and its sole shareholder/CEO entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement and Plan of Reorganization

Scroll to Top