Author name: Marc Alexander

Homeowner Associations, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Error In Lower Court’s Narrow Interpretation Of Civil Code Section 5975(c) Led To Reversal Of Attorney Fees Denial To Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Gravamen Of Plaintiff’s Complaint Was On Enforceability Of The Governing Documents.             In Alexander v. Singletary, Case No. D075943 (4th Dist., Div. 1 January 21, 2020) (unpublished), one of five homeowners in a common interest development unsuccessfully sought judicial declaration that the governing documents were unenforceable as to him, and for partition from the […]

Arbitration, Sanctions: 4/3 DCA Affirms $50,000 Code Civ. Proc. Section 128.5 Sanctions Awarded Against Client And Attorney For Their Frivolous Litigation and Dilatory Tactics

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

Broad Language In The Parties’ Retainer Agreement Authorized Arbitrator’s Review Of Ancillary Matters – Such As Litigation Conduct Rationally Related To The Underlying Dispute.             In ATG Electronics, Inc. v. The Mulcahy Law Firm, Case No. G056931 (4th Dist., Div. 3 January 16, 2020) (unpublished), Law Firm claiming Former Client owed almost $100,000 in outstanding

Family Law: No Abuse Of Discretion In $200,000 Section 271 Sanctions Award Against Wife Even If Amount Includes Future Fees And Costs To Be Incurred As A Result Of Wife’s Conduct

Cases: Family Law

The 4th District Ordered A Remand, However, To Allow The Lower Court To Review The Award To Ensure It Is Limited Only To Attorneys’ Fees And Costs, And To Prepare An Order That Includes Information Regarding The Basis For The Sanctions Amount             Family Code § 271 authorizes a court to impose attorney’s fees

Private Attorney General: Prevailing Petitioner In Drunk Driving Out-Of-State Conviction Case Was Properly Denied $240,459.72 In Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Relatively Small Class Of Individuals Involved, Plus An Attenuated Public Interest, Justified Denial Of Fees.             In Villarreal v. Gordon, Case No. B291027 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 19, 2019) (unpublished), certified for publication on January 10, 2020, a petitioner prevailed on a mandate writ petition by which the DMV was not going to give

Family Law: Preemptive Sanction Against Future Conduct Not Allowable Because It Impedes The Ability Of Litigation To Defend Litigant’s Interests And Gives No Opportunity To Withdraw The Offensive Conduct

Cases: Family Law

Preemptive Sanction Order Reversed, Although Court Of Appeal Was Sympathetic To What Family Law Judge Was Attempting To Do.            In the acrimonious dissolution case of Marriage of Richards, Case No. G056626 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 9, 2020) (unpublished), ex-wife continually interrupted the family law judge and filed 11 matters in one month, prompting

Civil Rights, Costs: Winning FEHA Plaintiff Properly Awarded $64,356 In Expert Witness Fees Through Costs Memorandum Procedure

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

Plaintiff Did Not Necessarily Have To File Noticed Motion Where Trial Court Did Exercise Discretion In Awarding Them Through The Costs Memorandum Process.             A FEHA plaintiff won a very nice jury verdict of $2 million in compensatory damages and $6.1 million in punitive damages (reduced on appeal to $4.264 million based on a net

Section 1717, Settlement: Settlement Agreement Silent As To Allocation Of Attorney’s Fees/Costs Did Not Bar Section 1717 Fee Recovery By Prevailing Alter Ego Defendant

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

$15,806.50 Fee Recovery Affirmed, Plus Fees/Costs On Appeal.             The next case shows how one needs to make fees/costs recovery explicit under a settlement agreement; if not, a later prevailing party not involved may get attorney’s fees and costs.            In J Sylvester Construction, Inc. v. Standeford, Case No. G057337 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan.

Appealability, Discovery, Sanctions: $3,456.70 In Fee Sanctions Based On Denial Of Postjudgment Discovery Order Upheld On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Motion Denying Discovery Order Is Nonappealable, But 2/8 DCA Treated It As Mandate Petition; CCP § 128.5 Principles Were Not Involved, Because Discovery Sanctions Were At Issue Instead.             The 2/8 DCA in Dalessandro v. Mitchell, Case No. B293472 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 17, 2019 unpublished), but certified for publication on January 3, 2020,

Scroll to Top