Author name: Marc Alexander

In The News: U.S. Large Law Firms, As A Whole, Saw Net Income Go Up In 2020 During The Pandemic After Discretionary Cuts, With Many Partners Taking Cuts Averaging 15% Of Their Draws

In The News

For 2021, Net Income For Firms Still Predicted To Go Up.             Although the COVID-19 pandemic certainly has affected the U.S. law industry, some recent reports suggest that its impact was not as bad as feared, according to some articles on the February 3, 2021 on-line edition of the ABA Journal.             U.S. law firms […]

Civil Rights: Plaintiff Winning $25,000 FEHA Judgment After Five-Day Jury Trial Properly Awarded Reduced Fee Recovery Of $141,165

Cases: Civil Rights

Plaintiff Requested $492,000 In Fees (Inclusive Of A 1.5 Multiplier).             You might think the plaintiff appealed in this one, but he did not.  The defense appealed the fee recovery, even though the trial judge had awarded a much lower fee recovery from the opening request.             In Velez v. Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc., Case

Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: Probate Court’s $26,900 Reduction To Fees Request Of $73,400 By Attorney Appointed To Represent Proposed Conservatee Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Attorney Appealed Reduction With Only Speculation As To How The Probate Court Reached Amount Awarded – Providing No Reporter’s Transcript Or Settled Statement On Appeal.             In Conservatorship and Estate of Bessard, Case No. A156773 (1st Dist., Div. 2 January 29, 2021) (unpublished), an attorney who had been appointed by the probate court to represent

SLAPP: Trial Court Properly Denied SLAPP Motion, But Did Not Abuse Discretion In Denying Attorney Fees Requested By Prevailing Cross-Complainants

Cases: SLAPP

SLAPP Motion Sought To Strike Allegations That Were Not Connected To An Identified Claim For Relief, But Was Not Frivolous.             In Noguera v. Hull, Case No. A157714 (1st Dist., Div. 1 January 29, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff sued neighbor defendants for their alleged failure to pay their share of improvement costs for certain improvements to

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Multipliers, Preemption: Prevailing Lemon Law Plaintiff Winning Only $21,957.25 In Damages At Jury Trial Properly Awarded $169,602 In Attorney Fees, Inclusive Of .2 Multiplier, Against Dealership And Finance Company

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Preemption

Apportionment Was Not Necessary Due To Intertwined Claims, Multiplier Was Appropriate Given Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Contingency Risk, And – Contrary To Lafferty And Spikener – 2/5 DCA Determined That The Holder Rule Does Not Limit The Attorney Fees A Plaintiff May Recover From A Creditor-Assignee.             For a great discussion on the Holder Rule cap and

Section 1717: Nonsignatory Defendant Sued On Note Properly Awarded $92,622.50 In Attorney Fees For Prevailing Against Plaintiff’s Claims

Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Nonsignatory Defendants, Who Are Sued On A Contract As If A Party To It, Are Entitled To Fees Where Plaintiff Would Be Entitled If Prevailing In Enforcing Contractual Obligation Against Defendant.             In Town & Country etc. v. King City etc., Case Nos. B296864/B303927 (2d Dist., Div. 5 January 29, 2021) (unpublished), two

Deeds Of Trust, Requests For Admission, Section 1717: Civil Code § 1717 And Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420 Award Of $191,619.47 In Attorney Fees And $29,345.97 In Costs To Defendants Prevailing Against Negligence And Fraud Claims At Trial Affirmed

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code § 1717 Fees Are Awardable In An Action To Enforce Or, As In This Case, Avoid Enforcement Of A Contract, And Plaintiff Failed To Prove He Met Any Of The Four Exceptions To The Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420 Mandated Fee Award For His Failures To Make Admissions.             In Yoon v.

Consumer Statutes: $11,425 Song-Beverly Act Fee Recovery, Out Of Requested $49,835 (Plus Multiplier), Reversed Where Plaintiff’s Rejection Of Prior Offer Resulted In Added Value And Where Court Improperly Focused On Contingency Retention Amount

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Re-Do Required Based On These Two Errors.             California’s lemon law statute can result in substantial fee awards under the Song-Beverly Act statutory fee-shifting provision.  However, the lodestar standard must be applied, which means an inquiry into the reasonable work even though prior CCP § 998 offers were rejected and irrespective of any inquiry into

Probate: Where Attorney Only Delayed Distribution But Did Not Conceal Or Remove Funds, Attorney’s Fees Recovery Under Probate Code Section 859 Was Improper

Cases: Probate

Only Three Forms Of Specified Misconduct Give Rise To Fee Entitlement, With None Present Here.              Probate Code section 859 provides that “If a court finds that a person has in bad faith wrongfully taken, concealed, or disposed of [estate] property[,] . . . the person may, in the court’s discretion, be liable for reasonable

Costs: No Costs Awarded To Prevailing Party Winning $2,000 And Limited Equitable Relief In Unlimited Case Involving Feuding Neighbors

Cases: Costs

Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Discretion In Not Awarding Litigation Costs Where Ultimate Win Was Minor In Nature In Unlimited Civil Case.             All litigation practitioners should be attuned to the next case, Van Taylor v. Ivie, Case No. B281545 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2021) (unpublished), where litigation costs are claimed in an

Scroll to Top