Author name: Marc Alexander

Arbitration, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Found That Respondent Did Not Prevail For Fee Recovery Even Though She Did Obtain A Ruling Denying A Petition To Confirm The Arbitration Award And Did Obtain A Vacatur Ruling

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

The Lower Court’s Discretionary Determination That No One Prevailed Was Affirmed On Appeal.             In Goraya v. Stephens, Case No. F078335 (5th Dist. Jan. 3, 2020) (unpublished), property seller and property buyer submitted to arbitration and settled, with the listing agent joined as a party in the arbitration at his own request, eventually obtaining an […]

Mediation: Voluntary Settlement Discussions Before Judge Intermediary Qualify As A Mediation For Purposes Of Satisfying Contractual Fees Clause Condition Precedent Requirement

Cases: Mediation

Non-Judge, Too, Does The Trick, But VSCs – Different From MSCs – Meet The Criteria Also.             Lateef v. Dutt, Case No. A150824 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 December 31, 2019) (unpublished) involved a trial court denial of attorney’s fees to a landlord under a lease clause requiring that the parties attempt mediation before

Year In Review – 2019

Year in Review

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike and Marc’s Top 20   Decisions in 2019 Supreme Court Room (Room 129), California State Library & Courts Building, 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, Sacramento County, CA Part 2 of 2—Prevailing Party, Sanctions, and CCP § 998 Decisions Predominated In Our Last Top 20 Decisions.             Here we go with the last Top

Consumer Statutes: Patel Decision Now Published

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Song-Beverly Act Plaintiff Receiving No Damage Award Can Still Be A Prevailing Party, And There Can Be More Than One Prevailing Plaintiff Where Two Plaintiffs Are Involved.             In our December 18, 2019 post, we discussed Patel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Case No. B293813 (2d Dist., Div. 4), which was unpublished at the time.  The case

Year In Review – 2019

Year in Review

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike and Marc’s Top 20  Decisions in 2019 Courtroom three, James R. Browning U.S. Court of Appeals Building, San Francisco, California Part 1 of 2—CCP § 998 Decisions Were Front and Center in Early 2019, With Other Issues Spread Across the Board.             It is the Holiday season, and we continue our

Family Law: $15,000 “Needs-Based” Award To Ex-Husband, Where Ex-Wife’s Parents Had Funded $290,000 In Her Child Custody Battle Fees, Was Appropriate Under Family Code Section 2030

Cases: Family Law

Not Improper To Factor In Ex-Wife’s Parents’ Significant Funding Of Litigation.             In Marriage of Janssens, Case No. C085986 (3d Dist. Dec. 26, 2019) (unpublished), ex-wife and ex-husband were engaged in a contentious dissolution battle over child custody issues relating to their son.  Earlier, a family law judge had ordered ex-wife to pay ex-husband $15,000

Legislation: California Consumer Privacy Act Of 2018 Becomes Law On January 1, 2020

Legislation

Does It Have An Attorney’s Fees Clause?—Not An Express One, But It Does Have A Catchall Which Will Be The Subject Of Judicial Interpretation.             On January 1, 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) becomes law.  It is a wide-ranging law that impacts more than 500,000 U.S. companies doing business with California

Deed Of Trust, POOF!, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $427,951.93 Fee Award Based On Deed Of Trust Fee Provision Went POOF! Because Nonjudicial Foreclosure Purchaser Relied On Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale Having No Fees Clause

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Purchaser’s Action Against Tax Authorities Did Not Really Focus On Deed Of Trust With Fees Clause.             CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Bd. of the City and County of San Francisco (Rincon EF Realty LLC), Case No. A155714 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 17, 2019) (unpublished) shows that Civil Code section 1717”s

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Elder Losing Restraining Order Against Defendant Properly Subject To Fee Exposure

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Welfare And Institutions Code Section 15657.03(t) Did Allow For Fee Shifting.             In Baca v. Sukert, Case No. D074512 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 24, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff elder, after winning a fleeting TRO which was dismissed, lost an elder abuse restraining order against defendant property manager in a longstanding feud with the place she

SLAPP TWO-FER: $40,200 And $5,250 SLAPP Mandatory Fee Awards Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

Also, Plaintiff In One Matter Was Not Entitled to Fees For Frivolous SLAPP Motion Where Defendant Partially Prevailed By Knocking Out Allegations.             1.  Spencer v. Sinclair, Case No. C082485 (3d Dist. Dec. 23, 2019) (unpublished): One defendant won a SLAPP motion, requesting $51,196 in mandatory attorney’s fees (with reasonableness of the amount requested

Scroll to Top