Author name: Marc Alexander

Arbitration: 1/1 DCA Finds FAA Preemption Does Not Apply To CCP 30-Day Deadlines For Employers To Pay Arbitration Fees, Agreeing Its Analysis In Keeton—Accepted For California Supreme Court Review Pending A Determination In Hohenshelt—Was Correct

Cases: Arbitration

Matter Still In Flux, Although Opinion Found Most Intermediatory California Appellate Court Agree With No Preemption Conclusion, But With Federal Judges Split On The Issue.                The 1/1 DCA in Cohn-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc., Case No. A168297 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 29, 2025) (partially published) sided with its earlier interpretation in Keeton […]

Consumer Statutes: Prevailing Defendant In Lemon Law Case Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Reason Was That Applicable Consumer Statutes—Moss-Magnuson Act, Song-Beverly Act, And Consumers Legal Remedies Act—Trumped Section 1717 Because They Only Allow Fee Recovery To A Prevailing Consumer Or Plaintiff.                Martinez v. Sai Long Beach B, Inc., Case Nos. B320441 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion published) is part

Deadlines: Where Notice Of Superior Court’s Notice Of Decision In A De Novo Appeal Of An Administrative Citation Was File-Stamped And Mailed To The Parties In A Limited Superior Court Case, City Had 30 Days To File A Fees And Costs Motion

Cases: Deadlines

City Blew The 30-Day Deadline, Thinking The Longer 90-Day Period Applied.                If you are involved in a de novo appeal of an administrative order in a superior court limited case, you need to be extra diligent in observing deadlines to file motions for fees and costs because the deadlines are smaller.  Particular attention needs

Arbitration: $75,000 In Fees/$4,600 In Costs Award To Plaintiff On An Interactive-Process Claim Was Affirmed On Appeal Even Though Plaintiff Only Won $30,000 In Compensatory Damages

Cases: Arbitration

Dueling Appellate Sanctions Requests Were Denied Also.                In Rivas v. Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc., Case No. B337901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 27, 2025) (unpublished), parties in an employment dispute involving common law and FEHA claims proceeded to an arbitration, with plaintiff eventually winning $30,000 on an interactive-process claim only.  Later, the arbitrator awarded

Private Attorney General: Lower Court’s Award Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees To Plaintiff–Up To The Time That Defendant Agreed To Provide Primary Relief–Was Proper

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Sought Over $1.4 Million In Fees, With The Fee Award Being $75,961.50, And With A Positive Enhancement Rejected.                Limited success, such as where a defendant voluntarily changes their behavior, may mean that post-change fees are denied under the private attorney general fee-shifting statute, CCP § 1021.5.  That is what happened in Save Berkeley’s

Arbitration: Because Arbitration Was Governed By The FAA, Lower Court’s Order Denying Arbitration To Defendant Employer For Failure To Pay Arbitration Expenses Within 30 Days Was Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration

FAA Governance Of The Arbitration Process Was Dispositive.                In Boub v. Prime Healthcare, Case No. B334972 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 25, 2025) (unpublished), a lower court’s order denying a defendant employer’s motion to compel arbitration for failure to pay arbitration expenses within 30 days under CCP § 1281.98 was reversed because the FAA

SLAPP: Frivolous SLAPP Motion Exposed Plaintiff To $81,193.45 Attorney’s Fees

Cases: SLAPP

The Fee Award Was In An Unspecified, Reduced Amount.                Helix Media LLC v. Clark, Case No. B332861 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 23, 2025) (unpublished) reminds plaintiffs to be prudent in bringing SLAPP motions; plaintiff in the case had a SLAPP motion declared frivolous, resulting in a reduced attorney’s fees award of $81,193.45.

Sanctions: Sanctions Award Against Attorney Reversed Because Other Side Failed To Satisfy 21-Day Safe Harbor Notice Requirements

Cases: Sanctions

Because It Involved An Amended Complaint, That Pleading Could Have Been Withdrawn.                Attorney in Windsor v. Does 1-10, Case No. A167006 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 21, 2025) (unpublished) was hit with a CCP § 128.5 sanctions order because he failed to dismiss an amended complaint after a summary judgment was granted.  The sanctions

Employment: Employees Winning De Novo Superior Court Hearing After Losing A Berman Hearing Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees And Costs Under Labor Code Sections 1194 and 226

Cases: Employment

Labor Code Section 98.2(c) Is Not The Exclusive Fee-Shifting Statute, Such That General Labor Code Fee-Shifting Statutes Provide Authority For Fees And Costs.                Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp., Case No. D082372 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 21, 2025) (published) confirmed that employees losing a Labor Commissioner Berman hearing can still seek attorney’s fees

Scroll to Top