Author name: Marc Alexander

Allocation, Prevailing Party: Fee Award For All Incurred Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff Who Amended Complaint To Add Cause Of Action Providing Statutory Basis For Fee Recovery Just Before Trial Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party

All Causes Of Action Related To The Same Common Issue And Were So Intertwined That Apportionment Was Impracticable.             For an interesting discussion of The Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990 (Civ. Code section 1738.11 et seq.), Newman v. Knit Creations, Inc., Case No. B292659 (2d Dist., Div. 1 March 30, […]

Partition, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Denial Of Section 1717 Attorneys’ Fees To Partially Successful Defendant In Partition Action Affirmed

Cases: Partition, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Defendant Moved Under Civil Code Section 1717 Claiming Entitlement To Fees Pursuant To A Settlement Agreement She Unsuccessfully Sought To Enforce.             In Carmody v. Mayne, Case No. D076197 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 30, 2020) (unpublished) Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral agreement to jointly purchase a single family home as an

Celebrities, SLAPP: Where Denied SLAPP Motion Was Not Frivolous, Plaintiffs Successfully Defending Against Motion Were Not Entitled To Fees

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: SLAPP

Determination Of Frivolousness Of SLAPP Motion Is Within Discretion Of Trial Court, But 2/1 DCA’s Partial Reversal Of Trial Court’s Denial Was Further Evidence That SLAPP Motion Was Not Frivolous.             In Oldman v. Bates, Case No. B296539 (2d Dist., Div. 1 March 27, 2020) (unpublished), Kurt Oldman and Dieter Hartmann were hired by

Civil Rights: Plaintiff Losing Intertwined Labor Code § 1102.5/FEHA Claims Was Properly Not Assessed With Attorney’s Fees Under FEHA And Was Improperly Assessed With Routine Costs As Against Los Angeles County

Cases: Civil Rights

Costs Award Reversed Because Intertwined Claims Were Not Frivolous In Nature.             If a trial judge finds that a plaintiff’s FEHA case is not frivolous in nature, a defendant faces large odds to gain an award of attorney’s fees and costs.  Hays v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B291542 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar.

Section 998: 998 Offer Requesting Release Of All Claims In Above-Captioned Civil Action And Release Of Affiliate Nonparties Did Not Render It Invalid

Cases: Section 998

$35,240.80 Costs Shifting Award Affirmed On Appeal.             In Kaplan v. Del Amo Hospital, Inc., Case Nos. B296107/B297898 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 26, 2020) (unpublished), defendant did serve a “successful” CCP § 998 offer to plaintiff, given a defense verdict.  The trial judge awarded costs of $35,240.80 against plaintiff, prompting an appeal on the

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Defendant Successfully Challenging Plaintiff’s Trial Court Fee Request, Where Plaintiff Declared Prevailing Party Under Contract, Was Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees As The Prevailing Party

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Defendant’s Limited Appellate Court Win Before Did Not Mean He Prevailed—There Can Only Be One!             Defendant lost an arbitration to plaintiffs who were declared prevailing parties under a contract by the arbitrator.  Plaintiffs moved for recovery of contractual attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717, a request granted by the trial court but then

Appeal Sanctions, Discovery: Discovery And Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Of $3,250 Against Father Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Discovery

Also, Father Ordered To Pay Mother $2,980 For Prosecuting A Frivolous Appeal.             Father, in Rybolt v. Riley, Case No. C086056 (3d Dist. Mar. 24, 2020 (unpublished), appealed from a non-appealable vocational evaluation order and discovery/Family Code section 271 totaling $3,250 for bringing motions to compel which were denied/did not further legitimate purposes of the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Elder Abuse Fee-Shifting Provision For Financial Abuse Applies If Liability Found Even If No Damages Ultimately Awarded

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Did Recover Damages For Elder Abuse Neglect, Such That Jury Likely Did Not Award “Double Damages” In Any Event On The Financial Abuse Claim.             In Arace v. Medico Investments, LLC, Case No. E071194 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 24, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff, as personal representative for an elder, sued a senior residential care

Civil Rights: Younger-Based Dismissals Can Give Rise To Attorney’s Fees Exposure Against Civil Rights Plaintiffs And In Favor Of Defendant Counties

Cases: Civil Rights

County Was Awarded $101,174.40 In Fees And $1,259.60 In Costs Under Section 1983 As Against Losing Plaintiff.             The Ninth Circuit in Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. County of Alameda, No. 18-16805 et seq. (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2020) (published), found that civil rights case dismissals under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)

Intellectual Property: Plaintiff’s Copyright Infringement Suit Was Found Without Merit At Both District/Appellate Levels, Such That Denial Of Attorney’s Fees Under 17 U.S.C. § 505 Was An Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Intellectual Property

Defendants Won Across The Board, Plaintiff Made Objectively Unreasonable Arguments, And Plaintiff Appeared To Bully A Public Teacher, Booster Club, And Parent Volunteer Defendants.             In Tresona Multimedia, LLC v. Burbank High School Vocational Music Assn., No. 17-56006 et al. (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2020) (published), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment in favor

Scroll to Top