Author name: Marc Alexander

Family Law: In DVRO Proceeding Where Ex-Husband Put Child Custody Issues In Potential Dispute, Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding $80,000 In Family Code Section 2030 Fees To Ex-Wife

Cases: Family Law

Interestingly Enough, Ex-Husband Did Obtain DVRO Against Ex-Wife Involving Three Sons.             The next case, Yurasek v. Kesala, Case No. A158859 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 2, 2020) (unpublished), is an interesting reminder to be careful what box you check in family law forms.  If you go broad and check some boxes for wide relief, […]

Family Law: Husband’s Intentional Tort Exposure Not Benefitting Community Was Properly Borne By Him, As Well As Wife’s/Related LLC’s Legal Fees To Successfully Defend Tort Suit

Cases: Family Law

Family Code Section 1000 Governed The Result.              In Marriage of Duncan and Tejpaul, Case No. G056998 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 1, 2020) (unpublished), husband unilaterally purchased a restaurant with third parties while married to wife, with the third parties suing husband, wife, and a related LLC for certain intentional torts.  Third parties won

Private Attorney General: Denial Of Attorney Fees To Plaintiff Who Successfully Challenged University’s Sexual Harassment Determination Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Litigation Did Not Confer A Significant Benefit On A Large Class Of Persons And The Lack Of Substantial Evidence Necessary To Support University’s Administrative Decision Did Not Constitute Evidence Of Arbitrary And Capricious Conduct.             In Doe v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. A158704 (1st Dist., Div. 4 November 30, 2020)

Laffey Matrix, Reasonableness Of Fees: D.C. District Judge Refuses To Sign Off On Settlement Incorporating Unreasonable Fee Award To Pro Bono Attorneys When Public Fisc Bears The Burden

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

$206,500.50 In Fees Agreed To By Plaintiffs And DOJ, But District Judge Found $82,562.50 To Be The Reasonable Amount.             Dimaio v. Wolf, Civil Case No. 20-445 (RJL) (D.D.C.) [Nov. 17, 2020 Memorandum Opn., Dkt. #30] is an interesting decision where U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon refused to incorporate a settlement agreement containing an

Section 1717: Where Losing Party Took The Position In His Complaint And Summary Judgment Opposition That There Was A Contract, He Was Properly Hit With $178,378.50 In Contractual Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Section 1717

However, A Litigant Which Was Not A Party To The Contract, Had A $97,278.50 Fee Award Reversed.             If you are a litigant and take the position that there was a contract in a complaint and in opposing a summary judgment motion, you better stick with that position.  Courts will not look kindly to shifting

Bankruptcy Efforts, Sanctions: Ex-Partners In State Court Lawsuit Against Debtor With A Discharge Injunction Properly Not Sanctioned For Contempt Fees When They Had An Objective Belief The Debtor Had Returned To The Partnership State Court Dispute

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Sanctions

Ninth Circuit Came To The Same Result, Even Under An Objective Standard Although SCOTUS Sent The Case Back Based On Denying Contempt Fees Under A Less Stringent Good Faith Belief Standard.             On April 28, 2020, we posted on In re Taggart, a Ninth Circuit decision where two ex-partners in state court litigation against a

Judgment Enforcement: Trial Court’s Denial Of § 685.040 Fees To Unsuccessful Plaintiff And Cross-Defendant Seeking To Hold Defendants In Contempt For Failure To Comply With Judgment Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Reversal Based On Trial Court’s Errors In Determining Two Elements Required For § 685.040 Fees, But 4/3 DCA Instructs Trial Court To Reconsider The Fees Motion On Remand Based On A Third Required Element – Whether The Incurred Fees Were Reasonable And Necessary.             A dispute over the use of a lateral sewer line was

Poof!, SLAPP: Trial Court’s Award Of $11,075 In Attorney Fees And Costs To Successfully SLAPPing Defendant Goes Poof! When 4/3 DCA Reverses SLAPP Grant

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Plaintiff’s Attempt To Initiate A Review Hearing With Private Swim Club On Coach’s Conduct Did Not Qualify As A Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(1) Official Proceeding Authorized By Law, And Swim Club’s Responding Accusation Against Plaintiff’s Son Did Not Qualify As An Issue Of Public Interest Pursuant To Anti-SLAPP Law.             In

Appeal Sanctions, Appealability: Plaintiff’s Appeal Of Trial Court’s Order Vacating A Default Against Defendant Dismissed, But Defendant’s Request For Appeal Sanctions Of $5,530 For Frivolous Appeal Denied

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Appealability

Self-Represented Plaintiff’s Appeal Of A Nonappealable Order Did Not Rise To The Strict Standard For Imposing Sanctions             In Barker v. Di Lando, Case No. A159556 (1st Dist., Div. 2 November 23, 2020) (unpublished), the 1/2 DCA dismissed an appeal filed by a self-represented plaintiff seeking reversal of the trial court’s order vacating default

Scroll to Top