Author name: Marc Alexander

Reasonableness Of Fees, Unlicensed Contractor: $90,000 Fee Award To Construction Plaintiffs Obtaining Award Under Unlicensed Contractor Fee-Shifting Provision, Way Downwards From $287,640 Request, Was Warranted Under The Circumstances.

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Overlitigation Of Case By Attorney Personally Embroiled In A Suit And Incivility Concerns Justified A Reduction Of A Requested Fee.             Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc., Case No. B298003 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 9, 2021) (published) is a case rife with so many lessons, we cannot catalogue them all.  However, it certainly […]

Landlord/Tenant: 1/4 DCA Affirms $44,736.50 Attorney Fees Award To Landlord For Trial Court And Appellate Work In Enforcing Settlement Agreement With Attorney Fees Provision

Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Tenants Had Waived Their Right To Appeal, And Failed To Support Their Claim That The Settlement Agreement As A Whole Was Unenforceable Due To Violations Of Civ. Code §§ 1942.1 and 1953.             In Park Lane Associates, LP v. Alioto, Case No. A155781 (1st Dist., Div. 4 March 5, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord and defendant

Allocation, Employment, Mulitpliers, Private Attorney General: 1/1 DCA Reverses $2,905,200 In PAGA Penalties Against Defendant, But Affirms $7,793,030 In Attorney Fees Inclusive Of A 2.0 Multiplier

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Fees Award Was Supported By PAGA, Section 1021.5, And The Catalyst Theory, And Apportionment Of Fees Among The Retaliation And PAGA Claims Was Neither Necessary Nor Possible, While Complexity Of Issues And Skill Of Attorneys Supported Multiplier In This Intensely Litigated Case.             In Sargeant v. Board of Trustees of The California State University,

Off Topic: Justices Aronson and Ikola Set To Retire In Mid-2021

Off Topics

They Will Be Missed On Our 4/3 DCA.             At an Orange County Bar Association appellate section meeting on March 5, 2021, Presiding Justice Kathleen O’Leary presented a ZOOM presentation on the state of the 4/3 DCA.  Among other things (including that appeals were down during the pandemic but that operations ran smoothly due to

Retainer Agreements: 4/2 DCA Unpublished Decision Holds That B&P § 6147 Voiding Of Contingency Agreement Is Subject To One-Year Legal Malpractice Statute Of Limitations

Cases: Retainer Agreements

No Direct Authority On Point, But Reasoning From One Decision Drove The Conclusion.             Lee v. Newman, Case No. E073745 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 4, 2021) (unpublished), a messy attorney-client retainer agreement/conversion dispute, is noteworthy for one issue which we found to be of interest.  There, a client argued that an attorney’s contingency agreement

Section 998: Failure to Provide Acceptance Line In 998 Offer, Even Though Offer Was Accepted Through Handwritten Acceptance, Invalidated The 998 Offer And Resulting Judgment

Cases: Section 998

First Impression Case Paid Heed To The Statutory Language Mandating An Acceptance Line.              In facing a first impression issue, the 2/4 DCA in Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC, Case No B302344 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 3, 2021) (published) decided that a section 998 offer lacking an acceptance line, although accepted

Indemnity, Special Fee Shifting Provision: Indemnity Agreement In Annexation Application Did Not Justify Attorney’s Fees Award In Favor Of Local Agency Formation Commissions And Against City/Developer

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Government Code Sections 56383 And 66016 Dictated The Result.             San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission v. City of Pismo Beach, Case No. B296968 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 3, 2021) (published) is an indemnity agreement fee clause dispute between a local agency formation commission and a city/developer as to the responsibility for fees

Sanctions: $125,690.56 Section 128.5 Sanctions Order Against Plaintiff’s Class Action Attorneys, Hinged On Settlement Agreement Release Language, Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Sanctions

Also, Order Denying Sanctions Request Is Not Appealable In Itself, With A Writ Or Appeal After Final Judgment Being The Ways To Challenge Such An Order.             Plaintiff’s class action attorneys, who represented a client arising out of spiraling events from a minor alleged debt by Capital One, were sanctioned $125,690.56 under CCP § 128.5

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: $1,237,501 Million Fee Award For Arbitration, Creditors Action, And Related Proceedings Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Broad Fee Clauses Were The Bases For The Affirmed Award.             In Currency Corp. v. Wertheim, LLC, Case No. B276506 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 2, 2021) (unpublished), Wertheim initiated legal proceedings spanning 15 years, culminating in an arbitration in which it achieved nothing (according to the DCA panel) because part of the award was

Scroll to Top