Author name: Marc Alexander

Bankruptcy Efforts: The Ninth Circuit Denies 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) Recovery Of Attorney Fees To Debtors Who Successfully Appealed Denials Of Their Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plans

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts

A Bankruptcy Court Does Not Fall Within The Definition Of “United States” Under The Equal Access to Justice Act, And An Uncontested Bankruptcy Case Does Not Constitute A Civil Action Brought By Or Against The United States.             Four separate debtors, in four separate actions, successfully appealed to the 9th Circuit after their unopposed […]

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Attorney Fees Of $144,200 Plus Costs Of $5,969.15 Awarded Under Section 1794 To Song-Beverly Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal Despite Lack of Prevailing Party Ruling

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

The Trial Court Made An Implied Finding, Which Was Supported By Substantial Evidence, That Plaintiff Obtained His Litigation Objective And Was The Prevailing Party.             Civ. Code § 1794(d) allows a prevailing buyer to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of an action under Civ. Code § 1790

Retainer Agreements: Trial Court Erred In Narrow Interpretation Of Retainer Agreement That Did Not Hold Client Responsible For Unpaid Fees/Costs

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Pursuant To Statutory Rules Of Contract Interpretation, Contracts Should Be Construed As A Whole So As To Interpret The Mutual Intention Of The Parties.             In Lerner & Veit v. Power, Case No. A158322 (1st Dist., Div. 5 August 31, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff law firm and defendant client entered into a written retainer agreement  wherein

Reasonableness Of Fees, SLAPP: Defense Fees Of $79,000 Were Warranted Where Out-Of-County Lawyer Efforts Were Needed To Oppose SLAPP Motion In Siskiyou County

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

Defense Showed Good Faith Efforts, Albeit Unsuccessful, To Hire Local Counsel, So Higher Hourly Rate Compensation Was In Order.             So this case was venued in Siskiyou County, which is a northern California county abutting on the Oregon border near Mount Shasta and having a population of 44,000 – 45,000 depending on how you count

Appeal Sanctions, SLAPP: In Pro Per Defendants’ SLAPP Motion Was Frivolous, Entitling Plaintiff To $9,900 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Denied, But Plaintiff Was Entitled To Appellate Fees For Prevailing On The SLAPP Denial.             Sometimes, there is more than one way to “skin a cat” as the proverbial saying goes.  That is what happened in Martin v. Smith, Case No. A157129 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 26, 2020) (unpublished).             There,

Arbitration, Employment: Although Arbitration Clause Had Invalid Attorney’s Fees/Costs Provision Relating To FEHA Claims, It Was Severed Such That Motion Denying Arbitration Was Reversed

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment

Severability Saved The Day!             In Conyer v. Hula Media Services, LLC, Case No. B296738 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 26, 2020) (published), the appellate court reversed a trial judge’s decision denying arbitration to an employer even though employee acknowledged receiving a handbook with the arbitration clause but argued that there was an employer duty

Family Law: Ex-Wife Properly Denied Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Because Financial Need Is Irrelevant

Cases: Family Law

Besides, Ex-Husband’s Jackson Credit Motion Had Sound Factual/Legal Bases.             In Marriage of Siva, Case No. A157554 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 25, 2020) (published), ex-husband was granted a Jackson child support credit, even though the trial judge denied dueling Family Code section 271 sanctions requests filed by both sides.  Ex-wife appealed the merits and

Deadlines, Intellectual Property: Ninth Circuit Rules That Filing A Fees Motion, Absent A District Court Extension Or Decision To Treat It As A Rule 59 Motion, Does Not Extend The 30-Day Deadline To Review An Earlier Merits Decision

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Intellectual Property

Practice Tips—Ask The District Judge To Treat Fee Motion As A Rule 59 Motion Or File Two Appeals, One On The Merits And One On The Fees Ruling.             Nutrition Distribution LLC v. IronMag Labs, LLC, No. 19-55251 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2020) (published) was a Lanham Act case where a plaintiff was denied monetary

Allocation, Partition: Code Civ. Proc. § 874.010 Attorney’s Fee Award Of $105,147.50 For Partition Claim Affirmed Notwithstanding The Inclusion Of Fees Incurred For Other Causes Of Action

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Partition

All Of The Claims And Defenses In The Action Were Inextricable Intertwined.             In partition actions, Code Civ. Proc. § 874.010(a) authorizes an award of “[r]easonable attorney’s fees incurred or paid by a party for thee common benefit,” and Code Civ. Proc. § 874.040 requires the trial court to “apportion the costs of partition

Class Actions: Award Of $158,446, Out Of Requested $228,133.38 In Fees/Costs, To Non-Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Class Actions

Plaintiff’s Counsel Failed To Demonstrate That It Conferred A Benefit On The Class Beyond The $158,446 In Incurred Fees For Some Authorized Document Review.             Attorney fee awards in class actions are wholly contingent on achieving benefit for the class – a requirement applying to both lead and non-lead counsel, with each required to

Scroll to Top