Author name: Marc Alexander

Costs, SLAPP: 5/5 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Award Of Attorney’s Fees Against Unsuccessful SLAPPing Defendants And Granting Of Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Motion To Strike/Tax Defendants’ Request For Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: SLAPP

Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Not Based On Protected Activities And Determined Frivolous, And Order On Costs Was Not Appealable Under The One Final Judgment Rule.             In Lang v. Petaluma Hills Farm, Case No. A156614 (5th Dist., Div. 5 November 20, 2020) (unpublished), several neighbors sued other neighbors – claiming defendant neighbors were conducting […]

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $83,000 Fee Award Affirmed To Lemon Law Plaintiffs Because, As Far As Fee Recovery, Post-Offer Conduct Activities Can Give Rise To Lemon Law Further Fee Recovery

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Section 998 Activity Is A Gestalt As Far As Fee Recovery Under The Song-Beverly Act.             Although unpublished, Regueiro v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B301772 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 19, 2020) (unpublished) is an interesting case which involved the intersection between the lemon law fee-shifting provision and CCP § 998 offer provision.  In

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Detailed Time Entries Supported $103,950 Fee Recovery Under Fraudulent Transfer Statute

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fee Entitlement Was Not Contested Below, So That Premise Carried On Appeal, Especially Given No Request That The Appellate Court Consider It As A Discretionary Matter.             Shin v. Chung, Case No. B301055 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 18, 2020) (unpublished), is a bleak reminder to contest fee entitlement at the trial court level; if

Employment, Section 998: 998 Offer During Arbitration Did Not Allow Arbitrator To Determine There Was A Prevailing Party, Just Reasonable Fees/Costs Under Wage/Hour Statutes

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Arbitrator’s “Prevailing Party” Determination Properly Corrected By Superior Court.             In Geiger v. Floyd’s 99-California, LLC, Case No. G056747 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 18, 2020) (unpublished), employee sued for wage/hour violations, with the individual claims ordered to arbitration.  The employer served a CCP § 998 offer offering to settle those claims for $10,000, with

Section 1717: Easement Interference Dispute Involved Interpretation Of CC&Rs, Such That It Was “On The Contract” And Justified Hefty Contractual Fees Award

Cases: Section 1717

Lengthy Dispute Supported Adverse Award Of Over $1.45 Million Against Losing Parties And In Favor Of Two Groups Of Prevailing Parties.             In line with our Mission Statement that "[a]ll too often attorney fees become the tail that wags the dog in litigation,” the next case—a contentious easement interference dispute between parties farming on three

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Partnership Buyout Fee Shifting Provision Is Discretionary, Involves Disjunctive Elements, And Requires Objective Lack Of Merit/Subjective Bad Faith Pursuit, Or Both

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Defendants Properly Denied Fees Under Corporations Code Section 16701.             Corporations Code section 16701, which applies to partnership buyout disputes involving a disassociated partner, authorizes an equitable award of attorney and expert fees “against a party that the court finds acted arbitrarily, vexatiously, or not in good faith.” (§ 16701, subd. (i).) The trial court

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $368.755 In Fees For Nursing Home Patient Recovery Of $195,000 Had To Be Revisited Based On California Supreme Court Reduction Of Statutory Damages

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Punitive Damages Are Still In Play.             Jarman v. HCR Manorcare, Inc., Case No. G051086 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 17, 2020) (unpublished) is a nursing home patient case with a $368,755 fee award under a Health and Safety Code fee-shifting provision which has quite a procedural history.  At the initial trial court level,

Sanctions: 2/3 DCA Affirms $16,111 In Discovery Sanctions Resulting From Attorney’s Violation Of Discovery Order For Which The Panel Overturned His Contempt Conviction

Cases: Sanctions

Misuse Of The Discovery Process Does Not Have To Be Willful Before Monetary Sanctions May Be Imposed, But Punishment For Contempt Rests Upon A Clear, Intentional Violation.             We previously discussed the next case in our February 24, 2017 post.  At that time, the 2/3 DCA had dismissed minor’s appeal from an order that

Sanctions: Attorney Convicted On 4 Counts Of Civil Contempt, Fined $3,600 And Ordered To Pay Opposing Party’s Attorney Fees And Costs Wins Reversal Of Fees/Costs Order And Has 3 Of 4 Civil Contempt Convictions Overturned

Cases: Sanctions

Attorney Fees/Costs Order Was Not Supported By Statute And The Proper “Unit Of Prosecution” For Attorney’s Conduct At A Fifteen Minute Settlement Conference Was A Single Count Of Contempt.             In Moore v. Superior Court, Case No. G058609 (4th Dist., Div. 3 November 16, 2020) (published), while representing a client at a fifteen minute

Scroll to Top