Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General: Fourth District Reverses $53,165.95 Section 1021.5 Attorney Fees Award To Construction Company That Obtained Writ Of Mandate And Injunction Against $149,200 Assessment Imposed By Division of Labor Standards Enforcement

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Dissenting Justice Found Fee Award Appropriate As Successful Writ Petition Conferred A Significant Benefit To The Public Or At Least To The Large Class Of California Public Works Contractors.             In Hobbs Construction, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, Case No. D074385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 November 22, 2019) (unpublished), the Division of Labor […]

Probate: Beneficiary Presumed To Be Missing Or Deceased Surfaces In Time To Unsuccessfully Object To Settlement Of Trust And Approval Of $295,000 In Attorney Fees To Trustee

Cases: Probate

Trustee’s Efforts Were Reasonable And Appropriate For The Benefit Of The Trust And Resulted In Restoration Of Beneficiary’s Trust Benefits.             Father of two sons was trustee to the trust established in his late wife’s name in Polonsky v. Polonsky, Case Nos. B290480 and B293958 (2d Dist., Div. 3 November 22, 2019) (unpublished).  The trust

Class Action, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: District Judge Adequately Explained 25% Reduction In Lowered Lodestar Hours, Says The Ninth Circuit

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Reasonableness Of Fee Award Confirmed By Percentage Of Recovery Cross-Check, Where Ultimate Award Was Beyond 25% Benchmark.             Class counsel in a consumer protection class action, which was settled, sought an unopposed $350,000 fee recovery.   The district judge, after setting the reasonable hourly rate, then applied a 25% reduction to the lower lodestar determination based

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Nonsignatory Prevailing Parties, Alleged To Be Alter Egos, Were Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause When They Beat The Alter Ego Allegations

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Reynolds Was Controlling, Not Blickman Turkus.             What happened in Kaddu, Inc. v. Gauze, Case No. H045090 (6th Dist. Nov. 27, 2019) (unpublished) is that a cross-complainant filed a contractually-based cross-complaint against nonsignatory cross-defendants where they were alleged to be alter egos of the primary cross-defendant.  Cross-complainant sought attorney’s fees, in addition to damages, based

Probate: No Abuse Of Discretion In Lower Court’s Denial Of Probate Code § 2642 Petition For Attorney Fees Of $64,398.75 And $4,145.31 Costs To Law Firm Representing Co-Guardians Of Minor’s Estate

Cases: Probate

Law Firm Failed To Cease Work As Instructed By One Of The Co-Guardians.             Probate Code § 2105(c)(1) requires that “[w]here there are two guardians or conservators, both must concur to exercise a power.”  Unfortunately for the law firm seeking fees in Guardianship of the Estate of L.T., Case No. B288733 (2d Dist., Div.

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Collections Fees/Costs Provision In A Preprinted Form Which Was Incorporated In The Parties’ Bargain Provided Fee Entitlement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fees Are Costs, And Do Not Have To Be Pled/Proven Unless In A Third Party Tort or Brandt Situation.             Ya know, fee entitlement under a contractual fees clause can be based on very simple language set forth in a preprinted form.  In Ozuna Electric Co., Inc. v. Integrated Process Control Engineering, Inc., Case No.

POOF!, Probate: Four Successor Trustees’ Attorney’s Fees Of $74,824.50 Went POOF! Based Upon Failure To Show One Beneficiary Petition Was Prosecuted In Bad Faith And With No Differentiation Of Fees Between Two Petitions

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Probate

Trustees Failure To File A Respondents’ Brief Sealed The Result!             A beneficiary filing two petitions concerning two qualified personal residence trusts likely was shocked when a probate court granted $74,824.50 in attorney’s fees to four successor trustees after beneficiary voluntarily dismissed petitions after obtaining some desired results.  Beneficiary did well to appeal in Sterne

Prevailing Party, Probate: Appellate Court’s Reversal Of A Probate Court Asset Characterization Required A Reexamination Of Whether Trustee’s Attorney’s Fees Were Proper Because She Was Really The Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate

A Re-Do Was Ordered To Be Done By The Trial Judge In The First Instance.             In Placencia v. Strazicich, Case No. G055631 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 26, 2019) (published), our local Santa Ana appellate court reversed a trial judge’s characterization of bank account funds which had led the lower court to award attorney’s

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: 2/8 DCA Follows Earlier 2/1 DCA Opinion In Recognizing That Successful Requesting Party/Intervenor Was Entitled To Fees In A California Public Records Act Proceeding And A Reverse-CPRA Action

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

End Result Was A San Diego Newspaper Garnered Almost $149,000 In Attorney’s Fees After The Judgment Modified To Allow For Additional Reply Brief Work.            In City of Los Angeles v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. B272169 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 19, 2019) (published), a San Diego newspaper which successfully intervened

Scroll to Top