Author name: Marc Alexander

Family Law: In Two Contentious DVRO Actions, Ex-Husband’s Prior Attorney’s Fees Order, Which Was Rescinded, Was Reversed, Although Ex-Wife’s Fee Award Was Affirmed

Cases: Family Law

Result Is Close To A “Wash.”             In In re Ankola, Case Nos. H045092 et al. (6th Dist. Aug. 12, 2020) (published), ex-spouses got involved in some nullity/domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) actions—actually two DVRO actions against each—with mixed success on the DVRO proceedings.  At the end of the day, ex-wife lost the first one, […]

Landlord/Tenant, Section 1717: Property Tenant Not Signing Lease Modification Properly Denied Fees On Numerous Theories

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code Section, Third-Party Beneficiary, Equitable, And Judicial Estoppel Arguments Did Not Prevail.             In Onerent, Inc. v. Galanter, Case No. H046916 (6th Dist. Aug. 11, 2020) (unpublished), an occupant, who thought she was co-tenant, eventually prevailed against a landlord, although the proof showed she never executed lease modifications to make her a true tenant. 

POOF!: Trial Court’s Granting Of Defendant’s Motion For Relief From Default Judgment Of $1,402,124, Which Included $103,728 In Attorney Fees And $1,997 In Costs, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: POOF!

Plaintiff Failed To Comply With The Statutory Requirements For Substitute Service Of Process.             Code Civ. Proc. section 415.20(b) provides the process by which substitute service of a summons and complaint may be made upon a party: “If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person

Family Law: Wife’s Award Of Attorneys Fees and Costs For Bringing Post-Judgment Emergency Motion For Immediate Transfer Of Community Bitcoins Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

Husband’s $189,391 In Bitcoin Transactions, Made After Wife Filed Petition For Dissolution, Were A Breach Of His Fiduciary Duty And In Violation Of The ATROS.             In Marriage of DeSouza, Case No. A156311 (1st Dist., Div. 3 August 10, 2020) (unpublished), wife learned for the first time, after entry of the dissolution judgment, that husband

Landlord/Tenant: 1/1 DCA Affirms $243,557 Attorneys Fees And $42,871 Costs Award To Landlord Who Successfully Moved For Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict Following Tenants Short-Lived Jury Award Of $671,574 In Damages

Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Much To Tenants’ Dismay, This Case Clearly Demonstrates That A Successful JNOV Can Create A Significant Reversal Of Fortune.             A San Francisco apartment owner (landlord) served his tenants with an eviction notice, under section 37.9 of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, when he sought to regain possession to allow him

In The News . . . . Quinn Emanuel Firm Is Seeking 5% Of Class Action Recovery By Insurers Suing The Federal Government For Affordable Care Act Compensation In U.S. Court of Federal Claims

In The News

That Translates To An Hourly Fee Of $18,500, Almost A Twenty Percent Positive Multiplier.             Here is an interesting one to see how it will pan out.              Quinn Emanuel is seeking 5% of a class action recovery by insurers suing the federal government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for Affordable Care Act

Family Law: $5,700 Family Code Section 2030 Borson Award To Ex-Wife Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Family Law

Borson Challenge Rejected, With Record Showing Disparity In Assets Between Former Spouses.             In Marriage of Swain, Case No. G058117 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 3, 2020) (unpublished), ex-wife’s attorney was awarded $5,700 in Family Code section 2030 fees, payable by ex-husband to ex-wife, after her current attorney filed a request but was substituted out

Probate: $48,625 Out Of Requested $68,175 In Extraordinary Attorney’s Fees Under Probate Code Section 10811 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Probate

No Abuse Of Discretion Shown By Probate Judge.             Probate Code section 10811 gives a probate court discretionary authority to allow fees for extraordinary services by an attorney for the personal representative of an estate, with examples being listed in CRC, rule 7.703(c).  Furthermore, Probate Code section 10832 authorizes the probate court to allow extraordinary

Discovery: Central District Of California Case Awarded Some Attorney’s Fees Where Party Responding To Rule 30(b)(6) Notice Failed to Specify Production Date

Cases: Discovery

Practice Point For Litigators:  Specify A Time For Production Or Develop A Good Email Chain!             In QC Labs v. Green Leaf Lab, LLC, 2019 WL 6797250 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2019), a responding party to a F.R.Civ. P. 30(b)(6), under Rule 34(b)(2)(B), failed to specify a time for production of documents/EIS even though Rule

Section 998: Joint CCP § 998 Offer Made By Husband And Wife To Three Defendants, In Negligence Case Involving Comparative Negligence For Both Noneconomic and Economic Damages, Was Invalid

Cases: Section 998

Award Of Expert Fees To Plaintiffs Reversed, Because Offer Failed To Allocate Out For Each Defendant.             Reynolds v. Pope, Case No. A155406 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 28, 2020) (unpublished) is a factually interesting case where a professional baseball player and his wife sued a neighbor defendant who invited some friends to his parents’

Scroll to Top