Author name: Marc Alexander

Prevailing Party: Defendants Obtaining An Unqualified Defense Judgment In Short-Term Rental Dispute Were Improperly Denied Routine Costs And Civil Code Section 1717 Fees As The Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party

Fact That Plaintiffs Obtained Preliminary Injunction Relief Was Only Interim, Not Determining Which Parties Ultimately Prevailed.             Hamilton v. Van Wert, Case No. F078345 (5th Dist. May 6, 2021) (unpublished) reminds us all that a Civil Code section fee victor and routine costs victor awaits what ultimately happens at the judgment stage, not interim provision […]

Celebrities, SLAPP: Former U.S. Rep. Katie Hill Ordered To Pay SLAPP Fees Of A Little Under $30,000 To Talk Show Host Joseph Messina

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: SLAPP

Fees Resulted After She dismissed A Revenge Porn Lawsuit Against Mr. Messina.             Recently, L.A. Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco decided that former U.S. Representative Katie Hill must pay former defendant Joe Messina, a radio talk show host, $29,905 in attorney’s fees under the SLAPP fee shifting provision after she dismissed him from her revenge

Probate: Trust Income Beneficiary Losing Fiduciary Breach Petition Against Trustees Properly Had To Bear Trustees’ Costs Under Probate Code Section 1002

Cases: Probate

Costs Award Was Not Under General Equitable Powers, But Section 1002—Which Has No Bad Faith Requirement.             In McClatchy v. Pruitt, Case No. A160367 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 4, 2021) (unpublished), trust income beneficiary lost a fiduciary duty petition against certain current and former trustees, with the lower court awarding trustees some litigation costs

Allocation, Multipliers, Section 1717, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Reversal And Remand Were In Order Where Trial Court Believed It Did Not Have Authority To Apply A Negative Multiplier In An Award Of Attorney Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Invoices Submitted In Support Of Plaintiff’s § 1717 Fees Motion Were Extensively Redacted And Contained Vague Block-Billing, Which Offered The Trial Court No Way To Meaningfully Apportion Time Between Causes Of Action.             After defeating defendant’s cross-claim breach of contract cause of action, plaintiff moved for Civ. Code § 1717 attorney fees of $939,600.50, which

Requests For Admission, Sanctions: 2/8 DCA Reverses And Remands Trial Court’s Denial Of Costs Of Proof Sanctions To Plaintiff Association And Amends $75,190.98 Judgment Entered In Plaintiff’s Favor To Add Over $7.8 Million In Damages

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Sanctions

Trial Court Was Required To Award Plaintiff Its Reasonable Fees And Costs Incurred In Proving Matters Defendants Failed To Admit Without Reasonable Grounds To Do So, And Plaintiff Association Had Standing To Seek Damages On Behalf Of Its Members.             In Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Macias, Case No. B295086 (2d Dist., Div.

Fee Clause Interpretation, Retainer Agreements, Section 1717: Postjudgment Order Awarding Attorney $1,232,735 In § 1717 Fees And Costs Incurred Defending Against Former Client’s Tort And Contractual Claims And Cross-Claim For Unpaid Fees Affirmed

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Retainer Agreement’s Broadly-Worded Fee Provision Allowed For Recovery Of Fees For Attorney’s Defense Of All Claims By Former Client, Including Tort Claims – The Defense Of Which Were Necessary To Defeat The Contractual Claim.             In Singh v. Molnar, Case No. B303366 (2d Dist., Div. 7 April 30, 2021) (unpublished), defendant attorney was awarded $1,232,735

Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: The 1/5 DCA Affirms $2,961,264.29 Fees And Costs Award, Inclusive Of A 1.4 Multiplier, To Prevailing Plaintiff In Action For Violations Of A Conservation Easement

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s Attorneys, Who Bore The Risk Of Taking On A Partially Contingent Case With Important Public Interests At Stake, Displayed Exceptional Expertise and Skill In A Case Involving Nearly Five Years Of Contentious Litigation And A 19-Day Trial.             Following a 19-day bench trial in The Sonoma Land Trust v. Thompson, Case No. A159139 (1st

Section 998: Trial Court Order Awarding Postoffer Costs Against Prevailing Song-Beverly Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal Because Plaintiff Failed To Beat Defendant’s § 998 Offer At Trial

Cases: Section 998

Requirement That Plaintiff Sign A General Release Did Not Invalidate The § 998 Offer As The General Release Clearly And Unambiguously Applied Only To The Claims In The Underlying Action.             Plaintiff received a $17,259.19 jury verdict in his Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act violations (California’s lemon law; Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.) action against

Section 998: Where CCP § 998 Offer Did Not Clearly Negate Contemplation Of Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of Accepting Party, There Was No Basis To Vacate Judgment To Do Differently

Cases: Section 998

Words To The Wise—As Offering Parties, Make Clear What Triggers Conclusion—If Not, Entry Of Judgment May Not Result Even Under Ambiguous Terms.             Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. C090980 (3d Dist. Apr. 30, 2021) (unpublished) solely related to a CCP § 998 battle, specifically, whether a section 998 offer precluded entry

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Winning Dismissal Of Civil Harassment Restraining Proceeding Only Obtains $5,000 Out Of Requested $11,500 In Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Request Was Excessive, But Trope Argument Against Defendant Was Unavailing.             A plaintiff dismissing a civil harassment restraining order proceeding, without informing defendant or the lower court of the dismissal, was subject to defendant’s fee motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s), a discretionary fee-shifting statute.  The lower court in Khalili v. Hoag,

Scroll to Top