Author name: Marc Alexander

Judgment Enforcement: $60 Filing Fee For Post-jugment Debtor Examination Was Not Allowable Where It Was Not Approved By The Judge Conducting The Proceeding

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Result Followed From The Clear Wording Of CCP §685.070(a)(5).             In Banda v. Wash, Case No. F077727 (5th Dist. Sept. 30, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a civil harassment restraining order and concomitant attorney’s fees/costs of $16,814.  She then filed a postjudgment debtor examination proceeding to require judgment creditor to appear for an examination, paying a […]

Class Action: Recent S.D. California District Judge Order In Mixed Coupon/Non-coupon Class Action Provides Guidance On Fee Motion Review Standards

Cases: Class Actions

For Noncoupon Relief, District Judge Bashant Grants $3.42 Million In Fees Based On Anticipated $10.5 Million Cash Fund Versus Class Counsel’s $5.7 Million Lodestar Request.             U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant’s decision in In re Easysaver Rewards Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77483 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) contains an excellent discussion of the methodology

Lodestar, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Judge’s Award Of $1,000 In Fees/Costs Reversed Where Requested Amount Was $164,768

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Appellate Court Needed More Of A Justification For Such A Large “Haircut.”             For readers who have followed us for some time, you would know that district judges in the Ninth Circuit have to explain “haircuts” from attorney’s fees requests which exceed 10% with some specificity.  (See, e.g., Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d

Section 998: Section 998 Offer Was Valid Because It Identified Accepting Party, Was Not Overbroad On Requested Releases, And Referenced An Attached Settlement Agreement

Cases: Section 998

Case Shows How Litigants Should Structure 998 Offers So As To Escape Enforcement Challenges.             We commend practitioners to read Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Ins. Co., Case No. C085749 (3d Dist. Sept. 29, 2020) (unpublished) when it comes to structuring an effective CCP § 998 pretrial settlement offer in several respects.

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multiplier: Although Fraudulent Concealment Compensatory And Punitive Damages Were Reversed, $510,637.87 Fee/Costs Award Under Song-Beverly Act Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Failure To Apportion/Double Counting Lodestar And Enhancement Arguments Not Supported By The Record.             In many cases, a fees-seeking litigant needs to apportion between fee entitlement and non-fee entitlement claims, unless the thrust of the case involved a fee entitlement case so that it was inextricably intertwined with a non-fee case.  If so, even a

Costs, SLAPP, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: SLAPP Fees Of $63,970 And Costs Of $1,680.13 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Vague Objections Not Entertained, But Failure To Award Positive Multiplier Was Sustained.             In Koerber v. Project Veritas, Case No. B291770 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2020) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal affirmed a mandatory SLAPP award of $63,970 in fees and $1,680.13 in costs.  The defense requested $109,545 in fees, inclusive of a

Deadlines: 2/3 DCA Affirms Costs/Contractual Attorney Fees Award To Prevailing Defendant That Filed Its Costs Memo And Fees Motion More Than 60 Days After The Superior Court Clerk Mailed A Conformed Copy Of The Judgment

Cases: Deadlines

The Clerk’s Mailing Did Not Trigger Deadlines For The Costs Memorandum Or Fees Motion Because The Judgment Was Not Accompanied By A Proof Of Service And Failed To Satisfy Requirements For Service Of Notice Of Entry Of Judgment.             In MES Investments, LLC v. Dadson Washer Service, Inc., Case No. B297634 (2d Dist., Div.

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Dueling Fee Motions By County And Supervisor Produced An Interesting Legal Discussion By The Sixth District On Municipal Fee/Indemnity Shifting Provisions

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

In The End, the Supervisor Might Get Some Litigation Reimbursement Fees Of A Somewhat Limited Nature.             Municipality practitioners should be well advised to read County of San Benito v. Scagliotti, Case No H045887 (6th Dist. Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished) about fee shifting statutes under the Political Reform Act (PRA) and Government Claims Act (GCA), not

Landlord/Tenant, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $1,586 Fees Award To Landlord Affirmed Based On Inadequate Lack Of Substantiating Evidence

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

$84,995.25 Was Requested; Only $1,586 In Fees Awarded.             Although there was no explicit appellate discussion on this issue, Triplett v. Decron Properties Corp., Case No. B295126 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished) is a reminder for parties seeking fee recovery to provide sufficient evidence in support of a substantial request.  The particulars

Family Law: Ex-Husband’s Denial Of Fees Based On Lack Of Jurisdiction Was Correct Where Fee Request Not Made In Responsive Pleadings Or Requested In A Motion To Leave To Amend Pleadings At The Time Of Trial

Cases: Family Law

Make A Motion To Amend Pleadings, Or Get The Result Here!             Marriage of Fader, Case No. B296972 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished) is a situation teaching that a litigant should make a motion to amend deficient pleadings in order to preserve an attorney’s fee request.    If not, the consequences are dire: 

Scroll to Top