Author name: Marc Alexander

Judgment Enforcement, Section 1717, Undertaking: Denial Of § 1717 Attorney Fees To Third Party Entities Defeating Postjudgment Alter Ego Claims Reversed, But Denial Of Release Of Undertaking To Successful Member/Partner Affirmed

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Undertaking

The Third District Followed The Reciprocity Principle Of § 1717 Set Forth In Reynolds Metals, MSY Trading, And 347 Group In Reversing The Fees Denial, But Affirmed Trial Court’s Denial Of Release Of Undertaking Based On Member/Partner’s Failure To Provide Notice.             In Westwood Homes, Inc. v. AGCPII Villa Salerno Member, LLC, Case No. C089127 […]

Prevailing Party: Past Minor Reversal On Repayment Issue Did Not Change The Conclusion That Prior Prevailing Party Still Prevailed For Purposes Of An Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Prevailing Party

Minor Reversal And Remand Did Not Disturb Prior Fee Result.             We have to say that we love the language of Justice Bedsworth from our local 4/3 DCA, especially in this case which has gone up and down in the trial and appellate courts, namely, Voit v. Malliet, Case Nos. G058435 et al. (4th Dist.,

Appeal Sanctions, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Obtaining Restraining Order Against Neighbor And Successfully Defeating Neighbor’s Appeals Was Denied Her §527.6(s) Request For Trial And Appellate Fees, And For Appeal Sanctions

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Trial Court’s Fees Denial, Failed To Provide Appellate Panel With Support Or Argument For §527.6(s) Award For Fees Incurred On Appeal, And Neighbor’s Meritless Appeals Did Not Rise To The Level Of Frivolity So As To Warrant Sanctions.             After granting plaintiff’s request for a temporary and later permanent restraining order

Costs, Deadlines, Fee Clause Interpretation: Lender Defending Against Borrower’s Attempts To Enjoin Eventual Nonjudicial Foreclosure Properly Awarded $9.235 Million In Fees

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

However, Costs Award Of $332,704.20 Reversed For Failure To Timely File A Costs Memorandum, Although The Appellate Court Did Indicate Lower Court Could Entertain CCP § 473 Default Motion Based On Surprise If Lender Wanted To Renew Costs Issue.             This next case, Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc., Case Nos.

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Additional Fees Sought By Prevailing Party In Government Property Code Enforcement Proceeding Not Allowed Under Government Code Or Municipal Code

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Form Of The Action Was Important—Absence Of An Abatement Order Was Crucial To Determination That No Further Fees Were Required.             Fratus v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. A157397 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 10, 2021) (unpublished) is one of those cases were prevailing parties, in the overall sense, should have been entitled to

Costs: SCOTUS Determines That Circuit Courts, Not District Judges Absent A Reference, Determine Whether To Deny Or Reduce Taxation Of Appellate Costs

Cases: Costs

Brightline Rule Adopted By SCOTUS On This Issue.             In City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P., 593 U.S. __, Case No. 20-334 (U.S. May 27, 2021), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 to vest in the circuit courts whether certain appellate costs would be denied or reduced.  San Antonio

Family Law, Probate, Sanctions: Lower Court Properly Sanctioned Putative Spouse’s Attorney $3,617.50 Under CCP § 128.7 For Filing A Frivolous Putative Spouse Petition

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

Putative Spouse Failed To Show She Had A Legal Marriage With The Respondent Under Indian Law, Based On A Res Judicata Finding In A Prior Conservatorship Petition Proceeding.             The problem for putative spouse and her attorney in Nijjar v. Nijjar, Case No. F078265 (5th Dist. June 10, 2021) (unpublished) is that they earlier lost

Employment: Employee Winning Only $32.00 On Unpaid Wages/Penalties Was Entitled To A Remand To Seek Additional Attorney’s Fees And Routine Costs

Cases: Employment

Lower Court Awarded Just $3.20 In Fees Under CCP § 1031; Only Costs Solely Incurred On Losing FEHA Claims Had To Be Excluded So As To Require A Remand.             FEHA is a statute which has very liberal fee- and costs-shifting provisions, as interpreted by a very robust California jurisprudence under the governing statute.  Moreno

Probate: Trustee Removal Petition Fee Request Properly Denied And Beneficiary’s Fee Request Correctly Denied Given Accounting Was Rejected For Future Determination

Cases: Probate

Trustee Removal Petition Fees Are Discretionary In Nature.             In Albrecht v. Albrecht, Case No. B306601 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 7, 2021; posted June 8, 2021) (unpublished), successor trustee appealed a probate court’s order declining to award fees for an opposing side’s demurrer to a petition to remove the trustee.  Beneficiary moved for fees

Lodestar, SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 2/8 DCA Affirms Fee Award To Prevailing SLAPPing Defendant That Was Greater Than The Fees Paid For Defense By His Insurer

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

An Attorney Accepting A Reduced Rate From A Client Is Not Precluded From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method.             In Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) (unpublished), prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike was awarded $146,010 out of his requested $330,420

Scroll to Top