Author name: Marc Alexander

Section 1717: Attorney Fees Of $340,865.22 Awarded To Prevailing Cross-Defendant Based On Fees Provision In Agreement With Handwritten Modifications And Executed By Only One Of The Two Married Plaintiffs

Cases: Section 1717

The Pre-Printed Attorney Fee Provision In The Parties’ Lease Option Agreement Was Facially Valid And Enforceable Despite Plaintiffs’ Assertions That The Contract As A Whole Was Not.             In Ramos v. Wallahan, Case No. A157085 (1st Dist., Div. 3 February 26, 2021) (unpublished), cross-complaining landlord defendant was awarded $340,865.22 in Civ. Code § 1717 attorney […]

Consumer Statutes: Reversal And Remand Of $45,378.99 Judgment Entered In Favor Of Lemon Law Plaintiff Due To Erroneous Special Jury Instruction Necessitates Reversal Of $179,510 In Attorneys’ Fees Awarded To Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes

The Trial Court’s Error In Giving The Jury Plaintiff’s Special Instruction That Took Out Of Context The Statutory Requisites For Tolling Express Warranties, As Are Properly Embodied In CACI 3231, Was Prejudicial.             In Nunez v. FCA US LLC, Case Nos. B297453/B299208 (2d Dist., Div. 8 February 26, 2021) (published), plaintiff brought a Song-Beverly Consumer

Cases Under Review, Private Attorney General: Doe v. Regents Opinion Depublished

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

California Supreme Court Denied Review, But Depublished On Its Own Motion.             On June 10, 2020 and July 1, 2020, we posted on Doe v. Regents, 51 Cal.App.5th 531 (2020), where the 2/6 DCA reversed denial of CCP § 1021.5 fees to a UCSB student who successfully obtained reversal of an interim suspension and reinstatement

Allocation, Civil Rights, Costs, Employment: Former Employer Properly Was Denied Attorney’s Fees Where FEHA Case Had Some Substance

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

However, 2/3 DCA Follows Roman Opinion On When To Award Costs On Non-FEHA Claims.             In Chevreaux v. Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Case Nos. B291268/B292937 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished), a jury returned a defense verdict in favor of a former employer on a non-FEHA, Tameny retaliation claim after she dismissed

Allocation, Construction, Section 1717: Contractor Defeating Worker’s Compensation Insurance Claims Not Entitled To Contractual Fees, Which Needed To Be Apportioned On Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 1717

No Contractual Fee Provisions Covered The Worker’s Compensation Issues.             Although apportionment is sometimes a discretionary exercise, it can be mandatory where there are non-fee entitlement issues which are likely disparate in nature.              Fernandez v. Escutia, Case Nos. H046529/H047015 (6th Dist. Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where a contractor won a construction

Family Law, Seriously: $7,325 Sanctions Award Under Section 271 Affirmed Where Ex-Wife Failed To Sign Stipulated Judgment After Agreeing To Written Settlement Terms

Cases: Family Law, Seriously

Postjudgment Activities Are Covered Under Section 271.             This next case, Marriage of Randazzo, Case No. E073891 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 23, 2021) (unpublished), falls under our “SERIOUSLY” new category which we have added to our blog.             What happened here, in brief, was that ex-wife moved to set aside a judgment entered after

Celebrities, Section 998: Voluntary Dismissal Of Likeness Claim Does Not Mandate Fee Recovery; Second Settlement Offer, After Unaccepted Earlier 998 Offer, On A Narrower Claim Superseded Prior One Such That Contractual Fee-Shifting Was In Order

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Section 998

Second 998 Offer Limited To Contractual Claim Extinguished Prior 998 Offer Which Was Broader.             Our Santa Ana Court of Appeal, in Varney Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Avon Plastics, Inc., Case No. G058903 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 23, 2021) (published), got to entertain some interesting fee issues under the California’s commercial name/likeness statute and

Costs, Employment: Trial Court’s Costs Award To Defendant Prevailing Against FEHA And DJOA Claims Proper Where The Costs Were Awarded Only For The DJOA Claims

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Costs May Not Be Awarded To Prevailing FEHA Defendants Unless Plaintiff’s Action Was Frivolous, Unreasonable, Or Groundless When Brought Or Continued, But A Trial Court May Award Costs To A Prevailing Defendant For Non-FEHA Claims Litigated With FEHA Claims.             In Jones v. Quality Coast, Case No. B297425 (2d Dist., Div.5 February 22, 2021) (unpublished),

Costs, Deeds of Trust, Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Seriously: 4/3 DCA Affirms Mixed Results Fee Awards To One Of Two Plaintiffs Of $34,740 And A Combination Of $35,577 To Two Of Three Defendants

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Seriously

The Title Issue That Started It All Was Partly Corrected And Seller Resumed Payments Years Before, But The Parties Battled On All The Way To Trial – Incurring A Combined Total Of $202,299.50 In Fees, Plus Costs.             In our Mission Statement, we quote a statement made by Retired Justice Wallin in Deane Gardenhome

Family Law: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s $50,000 Award To Husband In Interim Needs-Based Attorney Fees Where Wife Has A Permanent Restraining Order Against Husband And Claims Of Domestic Violence

Cases: Family Law

Nothing In Family Code Section 2030 Absolutely Prohibits A Trial Court From Awarding Interim Attorney Fees Where There Is Documented Evidence Of A History Of Domestic Abuse.             In Marriage of Sangha, Case No. D077062 (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 22, 2021) (unpublished), wife was not happy when the trial court awarded her husband –

Scroll to Top