Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General: Award Of $387,593 In Attorney Fees And $15,771 In Costs To Plaintiffs Who Dismissed Their Lawsuit Was Proper And Consistent With California Policy Under Catalyst Theory

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Filed A Class-Action Lawsuit After Making Several Pre-Litigation Attempts At Settlement, And Dismissed The Case After Achieving Their Main Litigation Objective.             Skinner v. Ken’s Foods, Inc., Case No. B299907 (2d. Dist., Div. 6 August 21, 2020) (published) has a nice discussion on the requirements for a Code Civ. Proc. section 1021.5 fee […]

Celebrities, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: President Donald J. Trump Ordered To Pay $44,100 In Attorney’s Fees In Story Daniels Dismissed Case After It Goes Back to LASC

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

However, $10,030.65 Costs Request Denied.             By now, a lot of us are familiar with the Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) case against President Daniel J. Trump, which had been litigated both in federal courts and the Los Angeles County Superior Court (LASC).  In fact, Ms. Clifford got tagged with some SLAPP fees at the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Brother Who Had To Bear Fees For Fruitless Appraisal Process In Involuntary Dissolution Buyout Nonperformance By Brothers Was Entitled To Appraisal Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, He Was Not Entitled To Injunction-Related Fees Not Directly Tethered To The Statutory Buyout Appraisal Process.             A statutory scheme, when considered in context, may well govern what attorney’s fees are awardable in a certain context.  That is what occurred in Schrage v. Schrage, Case No. B288478 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 19, 2020)

SLAPP: Partially Prevailing SLAPP Cross-Defendant’s Award Of $8,310 In Fees/Costs Affirmed

Cases: SLAPP

Cross-Defendant Sought $24,760, With Trial Judge Reducing For Only SLAPPing One Claim.             Cross-defendant in Tran v. Eat Club, Inc., Case No. H046773 (6th Dist. Aug. 19, 2020) (unpublished) successfully SLAPPed a first cause of action, but not other claims.  Because SLAPP grant fees are mandatory for a defendant/cross-defendant, plaintiff sought $24,760 in fees/costs.  The

Discovery, Sanctions: Trial Court Cannot Impose Discovery Sanctions Once A Vexatious Litigant Motion Is Filed

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Imposition Of Sanctions Was Error Because Filing Of Motion Stayed Further Proceedings Except A Ruling On The Vexatious Litigant Motion.             In Hanna v. Little League Baseball, Inc., Case Nos. E070995 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 18, 2020) (partially published; sanctions discussion published), defendant filed a motion to have plaintiff declared a vexatious

Civil Rights, Costs: In Mixed FEHA/Non-FEHA Action, Costs Properly Assessed Against Nonprevailing Plaintiff

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

Although FEHA Case Was Not Frivolous, Costs Allowable On Non-FEHA Claims.             Even though a losing FEHA plaintiff only gets tagged with routine costs if plaintiff’s case is frivolous, that does not mean that plaintiffs in all actions do not face exposure, which is the situation when non-FEHA claims are involved.             Obi v. L.A.

Prevailing Party: In Licensee Dispute Over Removal Of Improvements On Property, Reversal Of Security Deposit Ruling In Licensor’s Favor Required A Restudy Of Fees/Costs Award

Cases: Prevailing Party

$121,043 Fee Award And $14,374.60 Costs Award Had To Be Examined Based On Partial Reversal.             In Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc., Case No. D076214 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 18, 2020) (unpublished), licensor and licensee in swap meet space got into a spat over licensee’s claim about removing certain improvements and withholding

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: District Court’s Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To ERISA Plaintiff Bringing Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claim Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s Requested Fees Were Incurred During His Successful Administrative Appeal For Denial Of Benefits, Not For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, Nor During An Action In Civil Court, And Were Therefore Not Recoverable.            The Employment Retirement Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides for two types of actions – a claim for denial of benefits

Civil Rights: $819,335 FEHA Fee Award Stood After Appellate Court Affirmed $250,000 Emotional Distress Compensatory and $1.95 Million Punitive Damages Awards In Favor Of Plaintiff

Cases: Civil Rights

Case Illustrates How FEHA Fee Awards Can Be Substantial For Prevailing Plaintiffs.             FEHA has a pro-plaintiff fee shifting statute.  When plaintiffs prevail under this statute, the fee awards can be quite substantial.             Albarracin v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Case No. B292895 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 13, 2020) (unpublished) illustrates this point well. 

Scroll to Top