Author name: Marc Alexander

Civil Rights: Fee Recovery For Prevailing FEHA Plaintiff Reversed Because He Should Have Been Allowed The Hourly Rate Of His Los Angeles Attorneys When Inland Local Counsel Could Not Have Been Obtained

Cases: Civil Rights

On Remand, Lower Court Also Needs To Reexamine Its Multiplier Analysis In Tandem With Rewarding Higher Hourly Rates.             Caldera v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case Nos. G057343/G057478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 30, 2020) (published) is a case where our local Santa Ana appellate court reviewed a FEHA attorney’s fees award to plaintiff’s […]

SLAPP: $3,250 Fee Award To Winning SLAPP Defendant Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: SLAPP

Trial Judge Showed Discretion By Reducing Down The Fee Request Of $5,265 Based On The Hours Requested.             In Olson v. Sardi, Case No. E071991 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 30, 2020) (unpublished), defendant successfully won a SLAPP motion based on a negative review of plaintiff for counseling services to his son, with the review

Employment: $280,794 Fee Award In Rest/Meal Break Case Reversed As A Matter Of Law On Appeal

Cases: Employment

Case Demonstrates How Fee Claimant Must Have Solid Fee Entitlement Basis (Not Shifting Grounds At The Last Moment) And Discusses When Settlement Demands Are Admissible In Fee Proceedings.             This next opinion discusses several aspects of fee motions, oppositions, replies, and supplemental papers all pointing to a universal truth:  that fee motions primarily involve credibility

Family Law: Needs-Based Award Of $24,000 To Ex-Wife Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

Record Below Did Not Show The Trial Judge Imposed It In Retribution Against Ex-Husband.             In Marriage of Ward, Case No. A156599 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 29, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband appealed a $24,000 needs-based fee award under Family Code sections 2020/2032.  His only challenge on appeal was that the lower court imposed this award

Probate, Request For Admissions, Sanctions: More Than $1.8 Million In CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Went POOF! On Appeal, But RFA “Cost Of Proof” Sanctions Of Over $1 Million Stuck On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Sanctions

128.5 Sanctions Went Away Because It Did Not Apply To The Action Datewise, While RFA “Sanctions” Were No Abuse Of Discretion Even Though Substantial In Nature.             First of all, we hope all of our readers are safe—this pandemic has presented unprecedented, bizarre consequences, but hope you are well.  We are happy to report that

Probate: 4/3 DCA Remands For Recalculation/Reduction Of Surcharge Against Personal Representative Removed For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, But Affirms Attorney Fees Award Despite Trial Court’s Erroneously Stated Statutory Basis

Cases: Probate

Personal Representative Repeatedly Failed To Timely File Accurate Inventory & Appraisal and Accountings With The Court, Spent Estate Funds Without Authorization, Showed Hostility Toward Beneficiary, Failed To File Tax Returns, And Failed To Understand The Effect Of The Pour-Over Will Executed By Decedent.             In Karamooz v. Karamooz, Case No. G056897 (4th Dist., Div.

Consumer Statutes, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Mikhaeilpoor Opinion Now Published

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Prevailing Plaintiff’s Request For Fees In A Straightforward Lemon Law Case Was Properly And Significantly Reduced For Overstaffing, Lack Of Efficiency, Excessive Hourly Rates, And Denial Of Lodestar Multiplier.             We discussed the then unpublished case of Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. B293987 (2d Dist., Div. 1 April 1, 2020)

Construction, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Contract Between The Parties Not Required For Awarded Code Civ. Proc. § 1032 Fees Of $2,114,434 And Costs Of $104,498 Against Real Estate Agent Defendant For Violations Of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7160

Cases: Construction, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Defendant Had Fraudulently Induced Plaintiff To Enter Into Contract With Defendant’s Associates For Home Renovation Work.             Bus. & Prof. Code § 7160 allows for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, in addition to penalties and damages, to “[a]ny person who is induced to contract for a work of improvement, including but not limited

Costs, Prevailing Party: Where There Were Several Judgments, With Plaintiff Not Prevailing On A Misappropriation Claim In The Second Phase, Defendant Was Entitled To Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

Case Involved Applying DeSaulles Under Unusual Circumstances.             Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp., Case No. H043530 (6th Dist. Apr. 23, 2020) (published) is must reading for practitioners in trade secret cases when it comes to royalty awards under California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act.  It also has an interesting published discussion on who is the

Scroll to Top