Author name: Marc Alexander

Quantum Meruit, Referral Agreements: Client Only Signing A Disclosure And Acknowledgment Understanding Letter Section Did Not Give Written Consent As Required Under Former Rule 2-200 Of State Bar Rules Of Professional Conduct For Referral Agreements

Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Referral Agreements

Result Was Reversal As A Matter Of Law Of Jury Verdict Based On Contractual Breach And Quantum Meruit, Because Contract Was Unenforceable And QM Claim Was Time Barred.             Reeve v. Meleyco, Case No. C085867 (3d Dist. Mar. 24, 2020) (published) is an ethics reminder to all practitioners to get an express written consent from […]

Allocation, Section 1717, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Denial of Section 1717 Fees To Prevailing Defendants/Cross-Complainants Affirmed, But Reversed As To Denial Of Code Civ. Proc. Section 1021.9 Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Were Entitled To Statutory Section 1021.9 Fees After Prevailing On Trespassing Claims.             In Kelly v. Gregory House, Case Nos. A153735 and A153184 (1st Dist., Div. 1 March 23, 2020) (unpublished), Defendants/Cross-Complainants own and operate a 40-acre organic farm, and had leased 35 additional acres from an adjacent neighbor in order to expand

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 998, Section 1717: Trial Court Order Denying All Attorney’s Fees And Costs To Defendants Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Defendants Will Be Entitled To Substantial Fees/Costs On Remand, Not To Mention An Attempt To Garner Even More Fees.             This next case is a very substantial reverse of fortune on appeal.  So, that takes us to posting on Abregov v. Lawrence, Case No. G056866 (Abregov II) (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 19, 2020) (unpublished).

Choice of Law, Estoppel, Intellectual Property: Attorney’s Fees Properly Denied In Entirety To Plaintiff Winning Only 7.89% Of Total Damages, After Apportionment, In Copyright Infringement Suit

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Intellectual Property

Fee Recovery Barred By Judicial Estoppel—Plaintiff Classified Claims In Tort, Not Contract, Such That No Fee Recovery Allowable Under Either California Or Texas Laws.             This next case does demonstrate the complexity that our state appellate courts have to wade through, even in unpublished opinions, to adjudicate appeals from fee awards where conflicting state laws

Eminent Domain, POOF!: Reversal Of $328,000 Inverse Condemnation Merits Judgment Meant That $529,540.40 Fees/Costs Award Against City Of San Diego Went POOF!

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

Merits Reversal Hinged On City Not Bearing Responsibility For Private Pipeline Non-Maintenance Where City Refused A Public Dedication Offer.             In Ruiz v. County of San Diego, Case No. D074654 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 17, 2020) (unpublished), Plaintiff homeowners obtained a $328,000 inverse condemnation award against the County of

Equity, Prevailing Party: $2.41 Million Trial Court Fee Award Affirmed But $125,473.60 Appellate Fee Award Reversed

Cases: Equity, Cases: Prevailing Party

Trial Court Fee Withstood Because Good Faith Settlement With One Defendant Did Not Offset Jury Award Against Another Defendant.             In Campos v. Kennedy, Case No. B293745 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 17, 2020) (unpublished), a sexual assault case with very bad facts, the appellate court considered a $2.41 million fees award to the prevailing

Private Attorney General: 1/5 DCA Reverses And Remands Section 1021.5 Fee Award Of $265,783.90 To CEQA Plaintiff For Reconsideration After Legislature Passed Bill That Vacated Plaintiff’s Mandamus Petition Win

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Hope For A Fees Award Now Depends On Prevailing Party Determination Under A “Catalyst Theory.”             This next case includes an interesting discussion of fee recovery under a catalyst theory – a factual basis for fee recovery where a plaintiff may be considered a prevailing party by achieving its litigation objectives through the

Costs: Deposition, Witness Appearance, Official Court Reporter, And Exhibit Routine Costs Awarded For Trial Efforts Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs

Multiple Challenges Rejected By Appellate Court.             In Arambula v. Irvine Unified School Dist., Case No. G057396 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 16, 2020) (unpublished), a trial court loser recovering nothing decided they should challenge very routine costs which were awarded by the trial court.  Bad move.             Appellant challenged deposition costs for the defense

Probate, Section 1717: Attorney’s Fee Award Of $172,885 Affirmed Against Attorney/Law Firm Who Assisted Free-Lance Paralegal In Converting, To Free-Lance Paralegal’s Benefit, The Inheritance Of A Vulnerable, Impoverished, Paraplegic Beneficiary

Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717

The Trial Court Properly Awarded The Fees Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1717 Based On Provisions In The Escrow Agreement Drafted By Attorney/Law Firm Even Though That Agreement Was Determined By The Trial Court To Be Invalid.             The 2/8 DCA described this next case as being “prompted by a sordid chain of events,”

Scroll to Top