Author name: Marc Alexander

Employment, Requests For Admission: Defendant Employer Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees For Defeating Wage/Hour Claims Because Nothing Showed The Action Was Brought In Bad Faith

Cases: Employment, Cases: Requests for Admission

Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Also Not Available Because That Would Thwart The Pro-Employee Cost-Shifting Statutory Provisions.                In Cruz v. Calop Business Systems, Inc., Case No. B337749 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 26, 2024) (unpublished), employee lost wage/hour and unfair competition claims after not opposing a defense summary judgment motion.  However, no finding was ever made that […]

Year In Review—2024

Year in Review

Part 1 of 2—Mike, Marc, and Shanna’s Top 25 Decisions For 2024. Architectural details of the U.S. Courthouse in Los Angeles, California. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. Between 1980 and 2006. Library of Congress.                As we have done in the past, we post our top 25 decisions—in two parts—for 2024, which brought an influx of

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Tenant Prevailed Under Civil Code Section 1717 Based On A Contractual Fees Clause By Defeating Landlord’s Unlawful Detainer Action

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Tenant Proved There Was A Defective 3 Day Notice For Nonpayment, Because Tenant Did Not Contest It Was Claiming Occupancy Of Unleased Areas–$122,855 Was The Fee Award.                 Big Washington LLC v. Superdudes, LLC, Case No. F086483 (5th Dist. Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished) shows how highly contested unlawful detainer actions can produce a

Appealability, Insurance: Lower Court Did Not Error By Awarding $2,718 In Brandt Attorney’s Fees In A Contingency Case Based On The Cassim Formula

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Insurance

Lodestar Analysis Does Not Apply In A Brandt Contingency Case Situation.                Under Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985), a jury or lower court (via a posttrial stipulation for the court) can award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff as damages in an insurance case limited to the time spent to recover the

In The News . . . . UC Hematologist Awarded Over $3.9 Million In Attorney’s Fees After Winning Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

In The News

In A Prior Jury Retrial, She Was Awarded $14 Million.                As reported recently by The Orange County Register, a UC hematologist, Dr. Lauren Pinter-Brown, was awarded over $3.9 million in attorney’s fees, as against the UC Regents on December 19, 2024, by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge after she won a $14

Costs, Special Fee Shifting Statute: More Than $73,000 In City Attorney Time Needed To Complete CEQA Administrative Record Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Yes, Attorney, Paralegal, And Engineering Time Can Be Available As Allowable Costs And Fees To A Prevailing City In A CEQA Case.                Public Resources Code section 21167.6(b)(1) authorizes an award of allowable fees or costs in a CEQA case to a prevailing party, which may include reasonable attorney, paralegal, and engineering fees in completing

Private Attorney General, Section 1717: Attorney Representing Himself, And Showing No Separate Retainer With Wife, Was Denied Attorney’s Fees For Prevailing Against Lender On Default Interest Penalty Dispute

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 1717

Trope Generally Barred Fees, Plus Husband Could Not Show His Financial Interest Allowing For CCP § 1021.5 Fees.                In Honchariw v. FJM Private Mortgage Fund, LLC, Case No. A169447 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished), husband represented himself and his wife, although he had no evidence of an attorney-client relationship with his

Section 998: Prevailing Insurance Carrier Defendant Properly Awarded $7,500 In Expert Witness Fees And Other Routine Costs After Plaintiffs Rejected Separate CCP § 998 Offers

Cases: Section 998

Plaintiffs Obtained Zero Damages, So $14,242.56 Offers To Each Unsuccessful Plaintiff Allowed For 998 Costs Shifting.                In Chang v. Fire Ins. Exchange, Case No. B334217 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 19, 2024) (unpublished), two plaintiffs lost insurance and related tort claims against insurance carrier, after the plaintiffs rebuffed separate $14,242.56 offers under CCP §

Eminent Domain: City Properly Assessed With Litigation Expenses Of $312,920 In Attorney’s Fees, $11,300 In Costs, And $48,346 In Appraisal Expenses

Cases: Eminent Domain

City’s Final Offer Was Unreasonable, While Condemnees’ Revised Final Demand Was Reasonable Because Its Demand Was The Exact Damages Award By The Lower Court.                Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410 allows a lower court to an eminent domain case to award defendant's costs and fees where the mandated exchange of a final demand and

Section 998: 4/1 DCA Decides That Separate CCP § 998 Offers Must Be Evaluated By Offerees, Even If One Of Them Is Invalid

Cases: Section 998

This Likely Is A Split In Intermediate Appellate Reasoning, Especially From Reasoning in the Second District’s Gorobets Recent Opinion—But Maybe Not On The End Result When Evaluating Alternative Offer Scenarios.                 Well, we have a split in intermediate appellate thinking on how simultaneous, alternative CCP § 998 offers should be treated under California law. On

Scroll to Top