Author name: Marc Alexander

Costs: 2/4 DCA Affirmed Routine Costs For Preparing Exhibits/Closing Demonstratives Not Used At Trial, For Second Defense Counsel’s Deposition Travel Expenses To Japan, And For Certain Deposition/Trial Interpreter Expenses

Cases: Costs

“Pragmatic Take” On Routine Costs Was Explained On Appeal, With Non-Used Exhibits Costs Allowable Despite Siding On A Split In Intermediate Appellate Thinking—If They Were Helpful.             Segal v. ASICS America Corp., Case No. B299184 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 15, 2020) (published) confronted allowing routine costs—although, given modern litigation expenses, maybe far from routine […]

Sanctions: Sixth District Affirms Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5 Monetary Sanctions Of $8,025 Against Self-Represented Defendant Bringing Second Motion To Set Aside And Vacate 2010 Judgment

Cases: Sanctions

Defendant Dismissed Appeal Of First Order On Set Aside/Vacate Motion Before Filing Second Set Aside/Vacate Motion             In TAT Capital Partners v. Feldman, Case No. H044004 (6th Dist., June 12, 2020) (unpublished), a self-represented defendant appealed from a second trial court order denying his motion to set aside and vacate a 2010 judgment against

Appealability, Discovery, Family Law, Requests For Admission, Sanctions: Appeal Dismissed For Petitioner Who Was Dissatisfied With Trial Court’s Order On His Motion To Have Requests For Admission Deemed Admitted And For Sanctions

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Sanctions

The Appellate Court Has No Jurisdiction To Review A Discovery Order.             Petitioner father and respondent mother in Minasian v. Katz, Case No. A158517 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 11, 2020) (unpublished) were involved an incredibly protracted action – dating back to 2004 – regarding their child who was born the year before.     

Deadlines, Equity: Plaintiff’s CCP § 473(b) Mandatory Relief Motion Did Not Excuse Attorney’s Failure To File A Timely Fees Motion Based On Lower Court Order

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Equity

Result Was A Causation Issue—Failure To File Fee Motion Did Not Cause The Dismissal, But Only Resulted In A Lost Fee Request Opportunity.             Co-contributor Mike was a collegiate debater, with causation being a very important argument.  That was just at issue and dispositive in the case in Hernandez v. FCA US LLC, Case No.

Allocation, Construction, Insurance: Lower Court’s Denial Of Any Fee Recovery To General Contractor’s Insurer For Defending The GC, Based On Equitable Subrogation, Was Error

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Insurance

GC’s Insurer Was Entitled To Equitable Reimbursement Of Defense Costs Relating To Subcontractor Work As Well As A Reasonable Allegation Relating To Reasonable “Mixed” Defense Efforts.             In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.), Case No. E068353 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 10, 2010) (published), a trial judge denied

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: 2/8 DCA Publishes Decision To Stress The More Credible Weight Of Contemporaneous Records To Support An Attorney’s Fee Demand, With Lesser Proof Allowing For Substantial Reductions In Fees

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Attorney Demanded $308,000 In Fees, He Only Got $17,325.             “We publish to underline that contemporaneous time records are the best evidence of lawyers’ hourly work.  They are not indispensable, but they eclipse other proofs.  Lawyers know this better than anyone.  They might heed what they know.”             This early-on observation in Taylor v. County

Bankruptcy Efforts: Reasonable Costs Of Disciplinary Proceedings Imposed On California Lawyer Were Nondischargeable; However, Discovery Sanctions Payable To A Party Were Dischargeable

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts

End Result Was $18,714 Was Nondischargeable, But $5,738 Was Dischargeable.             In In re Albert-Sheridan (Albert-Sheridan v. California State Bar), No. 19-60023 (9th Cir. June 10, 2020) (published), a disciplined California lawyer was ordered by the State Bar to pay $18,714 in costs for the disciplinary proceeding and to pay a client’s opponent $5,738 in

Consumer Statutes, Preemption: FTC’s Holder Rule For Consumer Installment Sale Contracts Does Limit Consumer’s Fee Recovery Per FTC Construction

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Preemption

California Civil Code Section 1459.5’s Effort To Repeal Was Preempted By FTC Interpretation.             Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 25 Cal.App.5th 398, 410-414 (2018) [reviewed in our July 20, 2018 post] held that a debtor cannot recover damages and attorney’s fees for a Holder Rule claim under a consumer installment sales contract where a

Deadlines: Plaintiff’s Motion For Prevailing Party Fees Was Untimely When Filed 86 Days After Plaintiff Received Notice Of Entry Of Judgment

Cases: Deadlines

60 Days Is The CRC 3.1702(b) Deadline, Which Is Not Extended Whether Anyone Appealed.             Plaintiff in Ruiz v. NDS Default Service, LLC, Case No. E072061 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 9, 2020) (unpublished) filed a prevailing party fees motion 86 days after receiving notice of entry of judgment.  Under CRC 3.1702(b) and 8.108, that

SLAPP: Large L.A. Firm Defense Attorneys Winning SLAPP Motion In Defamation Case Are Seeking $323,965 In Fees And $9,706.28 In Costs

Cases: SLAPP

Reasonableness Of Fees Request Will Be The Big Issue.             In Herring Networks, Inc. v. Rachel Maddow, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01713-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), defendants won a SLAPP motion in a defamation case based on certain comments being protected opinions.  Now, the defense—guided by Los Angeles-based Gibson Dunn— is seeking mandatory attorney’s fees of $323,965

Scroll to Top