Author name: Marc Alexander

Civil Rights, Costs, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes: Ninth Circuit Vacates And Remands $5,962.11 Costs Award To Defendant Landlord Prevailing On Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff Tenant Claiming Race And Disability Discrimination

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

In So Doing, The Ninth Circuit Joins The First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits In Holding That The Christiansburg Standard Applies To The Award Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs Under The Fair Housing Act.             The U.S. Supreme Court, in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), held that, under the fee-shifting provision […]

POOF!, Unlicensed Contractors: $155,008.50 Fee Award Against Unlicensed Contractor Under CCP § 1029.8(a) Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Absence Of True Injury To Owners Did Not Justify An Award Even Though Substantial Payments To Unlicensed Contractor Disgorged Under B&P § 7031(b).             When you are dealing with fee entitlement, frequently, statutory interpretation is involved.  If that is the case, you get de novo review—which can lead to a reversal of a fee award

Allocation, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: Employee’s Limited Success On Some Compensable Wage/Hour Claims Led To Affirmance Of $17,234 Fee Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Employee Had Requested Fees Of $168,749.47 After Garnering Compensatory Award Of $6,958.36.             This case is another example of how non-compensable claim allocation and limited success can lead to a substantial reduction of a fee request even where there is some fee entitlement basis.             In Caballero v. Bill Muncey Industries, Inc., Case No. D076628

Arbitration: Bacall v. Shumway Now Published

Cases: Arbitration

2/19/21 Unpublished Decision Now Citable For Confirming Wide Arbitrator Discretion In Dealing With A Substantial Fees Request.             On February 19, 2021, we posted on Bacall v. Shumway, Case No. B302787 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 18, 2021), which was unpublished at the time.  Bacall affirmed an arbitrator’s award of $237,607.25 to a prevailing party

Probate: Reversal Of $12,584 In Prob. Code § 2640.1 Attorney Fee Award To Two Adult Children Who Petitioned To Establish A Conservatorship For Their Mother

Cases: Probate

No Conservator Was Ever Appointed, And Mother Never Became A Conservatee, As The Parties Settled The Litigation Without Need For A Conservatorship.             In Conservatorship of Brokken, Case No. B303898 (2d Dist., Div. 6 March 15, 2021) (published), two adult children petitioned to establish a conservatorship for their mother – over her vigorous objections

Private Attorney General: No Abuse of Discretion In Trial Court’s Denial Of § 1021.5 Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff Couple In Mandamus Action Compelling The City Of Los Angeles To Revoke Permit Issued To Neighbor

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Trial Court Concluded Plaintiffs Failed To Establish Any Of The Three Requirements Affecting Eligibility For A Fees Award Under Section 1021.5, But Their Failure To Meet The Required Showing That The Financial Burden Of Private Enforcement Made The Award Appropriate Was Alone A Sufficient Basis For Denial.             In Boppana v. City of

Ethics, Interest, Reasonableness Of Fees, Retainer Agreements: Where Fee Agreement Is Compliant/Enforceable Under B&P § 6148, Unconscionability Factor Guides Contractual Fees Charged And Reasonableness Governs Atty. Performance Under Retainer Agreement

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Interest, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Attorney Obtained Substantial Pretrial Attachment, But He Did Not Obtain Substantial Interest On Delinquent Fees Because No Interest Provision Was Present In The Retainer Agreement.             Pech v. Morgan, Case No. B300524 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 11, 2021) (published) is an instructive decision indicating how enforceable, compliant fee agreements are dealt with in pretrial

Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Settlement: “Dismissal Pursuant To A Settlement Of The Case” Language In Civil Code Section 1717 Does Not Encompass Settlement With CCP § 664.6 Jurisdiction and Attorney’s Fees Clause Covering Post-Settlement Efforts

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

Appellant’s Construction Would Thwart Settlement Efforts.             Appellant in Wash v. Wash, Case No. F077486 (5th Dist. Mar. 11, 2021) (unpublished) earlier appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement with a contractual fees clause, an appeal that he lost.  Respondent requested appellate fees of $18,216.98, with the trial judge awarding $9,321 against appellant.  Although the fee

Probate: Denial Of Probate Code Section 2642(b) Fees To Attorney Representing Minor’s Guardians Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Probate

The Reason Was That The Record Did Not Show Whether The Services Benefited Minor Also And Whether They Were Reasonable In Nature.             In Guardianship of Soto, Case No. C078801 (3d Dist. March 9, 2021) (unpublished), attorney for minor’s guardians were awarded two rounds of attorney’s fees under Probate Code section 2642(b), which provides that

Scroll to Top