Author name: Marc Alexander

Tort Of Another: $250,000 Tort Of Another Fee Award, As Damages, Affirmed Because Substantial Benefit “Defense” Involves Consideration Of The Equities

Cases: Tort of Another

Positive Gains Were Outweighed By Harm To Bank’s Reputation And Its Years Of Struggles With Regulators/Federal Criminal Prosecutors.             The “tort of another doctrine” is a nuanced one allowing attorney’s fees to be awarded as damages in certain situations.  Fees under this doctrine may be mitigated by consideration of special benefits that the alleged tortfeasor […]

Appealability: $75,105 In Labor Code Fees Award To Plaintiff Was Affirmed

Cases: Appealability

Defendants Failed To Properly Appeal Postjudgment Fees Award, As Well As Not Presenting Adequate Appellate Record.             In Hernandez v. Princess Windows, LLC, Case No. B302750 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 1, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff employee won wage/hour and rest break claims/penalties against defendant, totaling $58,861.  Based on fee-shifting statutes, another $75,105 in attorney’s fees

Class Action: Ninth Circuit Reverses And Remands Class Counsel Fee Award Where There Were “Red Flags” Of Collusion About Distribution Of Funds Between Class And Its Counsel

Cases: Class Actions

Inordinate Fee Distributions, Clear Sailing Provisions, And Reverter Of Reduced Fees Award To Defendant Were Storm Warnings In This Particular Case.             Briseno v. Henderson (ConAgra Foods, Inc.), Case No. 19-56297 (9th Cir. June 1, 2021) (published) is a must review for any clients and practitioners in the class action area.  It certainly shows the

Family Law: $4,500 Attorney’s Fees Award Reversed, Without Prejudice For Renewal, Based On Claiming On A Different Section Than Section 271

Cases: Family Law

Litigant Will Get Another Shot At It.             In In re Marriage of Orr and Traina, Case No. H046090 (6th Dist. June 1, 2021) (unpublished), a litigant won a $4,500 attorney’s fees award as a sanction under Family Code section 271 against the other side.  That was reversed and remanded, without prejudice, because litigant only

Private Attorney General: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Award To Plaintiffs Of $66,345.50 In Section 1021.5 Attorney Fees Where Plaintiffs’ Personal Benefit Outweighed Plaintiffs’ Litigation Costs.

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Significant Public Benefits Achieved In This Case Were Very High – Impacting Over 7,500 Water District Customers Facing An Unconstitutional Rate Increase Of Approximately 200%.             In KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water District, Case No. C088824 (3rd Dist., May 28, 2021) (published; fee discussion unpublished), plaintiffs succeeded in their petition for writ

Choice Of Law: $81,705 Fee Award Based On Settlement Agreement With Hawaii Choice Of Law Reversed On Appeal As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Choice of Law

The Defense Relied On California Procedural And Substantive Law At The Trial Court Level, Such That Invoking Hawaii Law Was Unfair Given The Settlement Agreement Had No Fee Clause.             McLaughlin v. Machen, Case No. H045869 (6th Dist. May 28, 2021) (unpublished) was an interesting choice of law case where plaintiffs lost certain claims against

In the News, SLAPP: Rep. Maxine Waters Awarded $53,590 In SLAPP Fees/Costs For Defending Herself In A Defamation Suit Against Political Foe Joe E. Collins III

Cases: SLAPP, In The News

SLAPP Fee/Costs Request Was Reasonable, Rejecting That Under $30,000 Should Be Awarded.             On May 27, 2021, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that Rep. Maxine Waters should be awarded $53,590 in attorney’s fees and costs under a mandatory SLAPP fee-shifting provision for SLAPP-ing a defamation action brought against her by political foe

Employment, Section 1717: Defendant Winning Independent Contractor Determination Against Real Estate Agent Under Labor Commissioner And De Novo Superior Court Action Was Entitled To $72,519.03 In Fees

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 1717

Fees Were Justified Based On Broad Contractual Fees Clause.             In Peng v. F.M. Tarbell Co., Case No. B307484 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 27, 2021) (unpublished), a plaintiff—a licensed real estate agent—lost a fight on whether he was an employee, versus an independent contractor, both at a Labor Commissioner and a superior court de

Private Attorney General: $129,000 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award In Groundwater-Extraction Cap Decision Was No Abuse of Discretion

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Even An Objective Whitley Analysis Justified The Lower Court Decision, Especially Where The Ultimate Award Was Less Than The Requested $240,000 In Fees.             Under our category “Private Attorney General,” we have posted on numerous decisions on fee awards under CCP § 1021.5.  Many involve the costs/benefit “financial prong” analysis required under Conservatorship of Whitley,

Appealability: Incorrect Date In Notice Of Appeal, Corrected In Civil Case Information Statement, Did Not Mean Appeal Was Untimely

Cases: Appealability

But Appeal Was Denied On The Merits.             In Ko v. Liang, Case No. B303813 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 27, 2021) (unpublished), appellants appealed a fee award based on failing to satisfy a pre-condition mediation requirement, something decided long ago.  Ultimately, appellant lost on the merits.  However, respondent argued that the appeal was untimely

Scroll to Top