Author name: Marc Alexander

Cases Under Review, Section 998: California Supreme Court Decides That CCP § 998 Costs-Shifting Applies To Pre-Trial Settlements

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Section 998

. . . Although The Parties Are Free To Allocate Costs Differently Under Their Settlement.                The California Supreme Court in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. S280598 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 20, 2025) (published) decided that CCP § 998 offers do apply to pretrial settlements, rather than just judgments or arbitration awards, for […]

Reasonableness Of Fees: 2/3 DCA Reverses An 82% Reduction In A FEHA Fee Request, Primarily Based On Reconstructed Time, As An Abuse Of Discretion And As Not Adequately Explained

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

“Haircut” Was Too Much, Requiring A Remand Revisit.                In the fee award area, the amount awarded is governed by an abuse of discretion standard.  However, large “haircuts” sometimes strike an appellate panel as too arbitrary, requiring a revisit.  That was the case in Guevara v. Interstate Meat Co., Inc., Case No. B332546 (2d Dist.,

Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Pleadings And Testimony Showed That A Brochure With A Fees Clause Applied To Services Different Than The Ones In Dispute, Trial Judge’s Conclusions That The Two Transactions Were Not Integrated Supported A Denial Of Fees

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

The Pleadings And Trial Testimony Supported That Result.                Plaintiff restoration company won a $452,422 jury verdict against defendant apartment owner for water restoration services, then moving to recover $260,215 in attorney’s fees based on a fees clause in a prior brochure involving different apartment turn services which were paid off by apartment owner.  The

Mediation: Lis Pendens Exception To Seeking Mediation Before Filing Suit Resulted In Reversal Of A Denial Of Attorney’s Fees As To A Prevailing Party Trust In A Real Estate Purchase Agreement Dispute

Cases: Mediation

Another Individual Plaintiff Who Prevailed Properly Denied Fees Because He Brought No Fee Motion.                In Trapp v. Maham Group, Case No. E081888 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 17, 2025) (unpublished), individual plaintiff and a trust plaintiff affiliated with the individual won specific performance suits against defendants for breaching lease and purchase agreements giving plaintiffs

Ethics, SLAPP: Fees Award, After Previous SLAPP Grant Reversal, Had To Be Reversed

Cases: Ethics, Cases: SLAPP

… But Plaintiff’s Uncivil Remarks In Appellate Briefing Led The Court Of Appeal To Deny It Costs On Appeal.                Incivility is a recurring theme by trial and appellate courts.  This opinion is one that, yet again, reinforces that attorneys should refrain from making attacks against opposing counsel and the trial judge.                In WasteXperts,

SLAPP, Sanctions: $73,405 Fees And $1,351 Costs Awards Affirmed In Favor Of Plaintiff Where Defendant Made A Frivolous SLAPP Motion

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Appellate Court Agreed That Plaintiff Did Not Have An Opportunity To Comply With CCP § 128.5 Safe Harbor Sanctions Provision, But Indicated It Should Be Followed Absent Exceptional Circumstances.                In Chang v. Brooks, Case Nos. B320278 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 14, 2025) (unpublished), defendant’s SLAPP motion was determined to be properly

SLAPP: Seven Defendants Properly Awarded $683,417.50 In SLAPP Fees And Costs

Cases: SLAPP

However, They Did Not Get Their Request of $1.9 Million In Fees.                In Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case Nos. A166007/A167416 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 12, 2025) (published), seven defendants prosecuted a prior appeal which resulted in the lower court’s granting of SLAPP motions and the later awarding of $683,417.50 in fees and

Civil Rights, Prevailing Party: SCOTUS Decides That A Preliminary Injunction Mooted By Subsequent Events Does Not Make One A Prevailing Party Under The Civil Rights Fee Shifting Statute

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Prevailing Party

However, A Footnote In the Opinion Shows That This Is A Nuanced Issue Depending On Objectives Of Plaintiff Or Defendant.                We now report on a recent SCOTUS decision under the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), which provides when a “prevailing party” can recover fees.  This case is interesting and may have repercussions

Partition: 34.29% Property Owner Was Properly Saddled With Close To $86,000 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs At The End Of The Day

Cases: Partition

Losing Party, To The Appellate Court, Refused To List A Property For Sale And Refused To Reimburse Another Party For Paid Taxes—Leading To The Result With Respect To Fees And Costs.                In this category, we have made many posts which involve partition proceedings, keeping in mind that CCP § 874.040, subdivisions (a) and (e),

Appealability, Sanctions: Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Trial Court’s Order Adopting Discovery Referee’s Recommendation On Apportionment Of Fees Claiming Apportionment Equated To Monetary Sanctions Exceeding $5,000

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

4/3 DCA Dismissed The Appeal As The Trial Court’s Interlocutory Order On The Discovery Referee Fees Was Not A Sanctions Order, Did Not Use The Word Sanctions, And Did Not Cite Authority To Impose Sanctions.             The parties in Glickman v. Krolikowski, Case No. G064853 (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 7, 2025) (published), stipulated to

Scroll to Top