Author name: Marc Alexander

Celebrities, SLAPP: 4/3 DCA Affirms $137,340.25 Fees/Costs Awarded To SLAPPing Real Housewives Of Orange County Defendant In Defamation Lawsuit

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: SLAPP

Defendant’s Comments Were Protected Activity As They Were Made In A Public Forum Concerning A Public Interest.             In Bellino v. Beador, Case No. G057255, consolidated with Case No. G058129 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 23, 2020) (unpublished), Shannon Beador and Tamra Judge, two cast members of the reality show the “Real Housewives of […]

Costs: $9,816.78 In Costs For 22 Medical Subpoenas Was Reasonably Granted To The Defendant, Given The Position It Took Through Affirmative Defenses.

Cases: Costs

Premature Filing Of Costs Memorandum Was No Problem Given A Lack Of Prejudice.             In Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist., Case Nos. B300072/B302209 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 22, 2020) (published), defendant was allowed a routine costs award of $9,816.78 for service of 22 medical subpoenas in a case where the defendant alleged

Indemnity: $21,012 Fee/Costs Award Under CCP § 1038 Sustained On Appeal After 631.8 Motion Granted In Indemnity Action

Cases: Indemnity

Vindictive Purpose Of The Action Shown Through Emails.             Code of Civil Procedure section 1038 provides that, where a trial court grants a defense motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment, or nonsuit in an action for indemnity and contribution, the trial court, on motion, may award attorney’s fees if the action was not brought

Fee Clause Interpretation, Deadlines: Broker Award Of $150,000 In Prevailing Contractual Fees Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Good Cause Was Shown For Allowing Fee Motion To Be Considered After Deadline, With Broad Fees Clause Encompassing Contractual Duties Even If Statutory Duties Were Not Encompassed.             Price v. Gullan, Case No. D075332 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 21, 2020) (unpublished) was a very contentious case involving a defective yacht purchase dispute where the

Family Law: Ex-Wife’s $100,000 Needs-Based Fees Request, Where Husband Had Lots Of Expenses And Her Request Made At Eleventh Hour, Was Properly Denied

Cases: Family Law

Timing, Circumstances, And Nature Of Request Are All Key Concerns In This Area.             In Marriage of Tearse, Case Nos. A155541/A156019 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 21, 2020) (unpublished), ex-wife was not pleased when the family judge denied her needs-based fee request for $100,000.  The problem was she did not defeat the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard

Costs: $149,106.50 In Routine Costs (Expert Witness Fees) Were Affirmed In Favor Of The Defense In Accountant Malpractice Action

Cases: Costs

Plaintiff Did Not Meet His Burden In Showing The Expenses Were Unnecessary/Unreasonable.             In Anton v. Barbich Hooper King Dill Hoffman Accountancy Corp., Case Nos. F073713/F074644 (5th Dist. Oct. 20, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a malpractice case brought against accountant defendants (mainly for accounting expert testimony in a litigation involving division of fees/costs) on summary

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $1,435 Fee/Cost Award Against Losing Plaintiff In Civil Anti-Harassment Action Was Properly Granted

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

No Costs Memorandum Required To Be Filed Because Fees/Costs Awarded Made Before Notices Of Dismissal/Entry Of Judgment Served By Plaintiff, Who Had Notice Of The Requests.             Plaintiff, a hair stylist at Chaddick’s beauty salon, was terminated and filed an anti-harassment petition against Ms. Chaddick, which action was dismissed after the trial court declined to

Family Law: Where Ex-Husband’s Living Expenses Made Him Unable To Pay Requested Needs-Based Fees Of $100,000, They Were Properly Denied To Ex-Wife

Cases: Family Law

No Oral Hearing Was Required On Needs-Based Request And Denial Of Ex Parte Request, Which Was Never Ruled On Anyway, Was Nonprejudicial.             Ex-wife brought a last-minute request for $100,000 in needs-based attorney’s fees after resting her case-in-chief because she needed some more expert help and money for her attorney’s closing argument.  The lower court

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Plaintiff Employee, In Unlimited Civil Case, Winning Limited Jurisdiction Damages Properly Awarded Wage/Hour And Break Claim Intertwined Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Section 998 Cost-Shifting Did Not Preempt Labor Code Cost-Shifting Provisions So As To Allow Fee and Costs Recovery To Certain Defendants.             Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc., Case No. D075479 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 15, 2020) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision discussing the intersection of Labor Code costs shifting and CCP § 998

Appealability, Equity: Losing Party’s Failure To Appeal Earlier Fee Order Forfeited Challenges

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Equity

However, Amending Fee Order Nunc Pro Tunc To Correct Clerical Error Was No Abuse Of Discretion.             Trans World Sourcing, Inc. v. Prend, Case No. E071712 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 14, 2020) (unpublished) is a situation where two dismissed defendants moved for attorney’s fees of $27,263.63, each, and for costs of $3,859.49, each, against

Scroll to Top