Author name: Marc Alexander

Intellectual Property, POOF!: Federal Circuit Court Of Appeals Reverses $1.1 Million “Exceptional Case” Fee Award In Patent/Trademark/Trademark Litigation

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: POOF!

The Problem Was That The Claims Were Dismissed Before Fully Adjudicated, With The Fee Claimant Failing to Show In Detail Why They Were Wholly Lacking In Merit.             In Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd., No. 2019-1454 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2020) (precedential), spillproof cup rivals engaged in federal intellectual property litigation, with Plaintiff […]

Section 1717: Award To Prevailing Defendant Of $26.8 Million, Out Of Requested $42 Million, In Civil Code Section 1717 Attorney Fees Reversed As Premature When Appellate Panel Reverses Trial Court’s Granting of Judgment On The Pleadings

Cases: Section 1717

2/3 DCA Did Not Reach The Merits Of Plaintiff’s Argument Against The Fees Award As The Award Necessarily Fell With Reversal Of The Judgment             Shell Oil v. Barclay Hollander, Case No. B289505 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 5, 2020) (unpublished), involves a hotly contested action brought by Shell Oil seeking indemnification for environmental

Private Attorney General: Second District Reverses Denial Of Section 1021.5 Fees To University of California Student Who Successfully Sought To Have University Comply With Its Own Policies

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Trial Court Failed To Recognize The Significance Of The Constitutional Due Process Rights Effectuated By Plaintiff’s Action.             A party seeking attorney’s fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 must show that: (1) he/she/it is the successful party in an action; (2) the action resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting public

Allocation, Construction, Reasonableness Of Fees: $222,202.75 Contractual Fee Award In Favor Of Property Owners And Against General Contractor, After Offsets, Was Not Erroneous Except For One Minor Deduction In Gnarly Construction Defect Dispute.

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

$557,441.75 Was The Fee Request, But Owners’ Apportionment Not Credited Below Or On Appeal, So Reduced Award Was The Result.             In Stolp v. Murphy-True, Inc., Case Nos. A154770/A155426 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 4, 2020) (unpublished), a litigation snafu resulted over a $3 million-plus remodel job at plaintiffs’ home, with plaintiffs suing for water

Family Law: Lower Court’s Award Of § 2030 Pendente Lite Fees To Ex-Wife, $45,000 Out Of $93,000 Request, Was No Abuse Of Discretion Despite An Appeal By Ex-Husband Firefighter

Cases: Family Law

Nothing Showed Any Error In The Lump Sum Payment, The Monthly Payments, Or Still Ordering Them Even Though Ex-Wife Was Cohabitating With Someone Else!             We have posted, very frequently, on Family Code section 2030 “needs-based” awards to spouses, which are pendente lite awards to spouses with financial disparity needing an award during a dissolution

Costs, Employment: Plaintiff Obtaining Only $900 In Statutory Penalties And A Minor Statutory Fees Award On A Single Claim Properly Denied Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Defense, Also, Properly Denied Costs Because Plaintiff’s Claims Were Found To Be Nonfrivolous.             In Wergechik v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC, Case Nos. G056079/G056318 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 3, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff did prevail on FEHA claims against defendants, but she was only awarded a $750 penalty and $150 in statutory attorney’s fees on

Probate: Probate Court’s Order For Attorneys Helping Resolving Ownership Claims And Rendering Tax Advice Properly Awarded

Cases: Probate

These Were Extraordinary Compensation Or Fees Properly Awarded.             In Estate of Lund, Case No. A156410 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 3, 2020) (unpublished), a decedent’s son appealed two attorney’s fees awards which were rendered in a probate matter.  The first concerned an attorney’s efforts to resolve ownership claims by preparing a Probate Code section

Private Attorney General: San Juan Capistrano Competing Hotel Developer Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because Developer’s “Upside” Did Not Vindicate A Broader Public Interest And Developer Had A Large Personal Stake In The Litigation

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Although Factual In Nature, Case Demonstrates How Litigants Need To Be Pragmatic In This Area Of Fee Recovery With Respect To Expectations.             Co-contributor Mike lives in South Orange County.  He can attest to a lot of public attention devoted toward renovating and bringing life to the San Juan Capistrano Mission area. There is vibrant

Scroll to Top