Author name: Marc Alexander

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717, Settlement: Reasonable Discretion Exercised In Awarding Defendant Only 20% Of Requested $177,712 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

The Legal Principles Of Civil Code Section 1717 and Santisas Governed.             Both parties appealed the fee results in Rusnak/South Bay v. Glukel Group, Case No. B286513 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2019) involving a dispute between landlord and tenant – with tenant plaintiff advancing contract and tort claims against landlord.          […]

Costs, Experts, Section 998: Sixth District Affirms Denial Of $26,950.50 In Expert Witness Fees To Prevailing Defendant Because Section 998 Offer Was Not Apportioned Among Plaintiffs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Section 998

Defendant’s Treatment Of Mother And Son Plaintiffs As Spouses For Section 998 Purposes Did Not Fly.             In Roe v. Hollister School Dist., Case No. H043658 (6th Dist., Sept. 26, 2019) (unpublished), mother and son plaintiffs (Jane and Jonnie Roe) sued school district and others for an incident involving the five-year-old son and another six-year-old

Class Actions, Employment, POOF!: Class Action Win Of Labor Code Section 226 Penalties And Attorney Fees Against Employer Goes POOF! On Appeal

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Employer’s Failure To Include Premium Pay On Wage Statements For “On Duty” Meal And Rest Periods Did Not Trigger Penalties Because Premium Pay Is A Statutory Remedy For An Employer’s Conduct – Not An Amount “Earned” By The Employee.             A certified class of former and current non-exempt employees brought a lawsuit against their

Family Law: Family Court’s Failure To Make Mandatory Findings Required Under Family Code Sections 2030 and 2032 Was Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Family Law

Family Court Did Not Award Fees Due To Wife’s Pro Per Status At The Time It Rendered Its Decision.             In Marriage of Soares, Case No. F076532 (5th Dist., Sept. 26, 2019) (unpublished), Wife challenged family court’s denial of her needs-based fees request, its spousal support determination, and the judge’s failure to recuse himself

Private Attorney General, Civil Rights: Hawkins Opinion Now Partially Published As To The Discussions On Sufficiency Of Evidence of Retaliation And Award Of Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

September 9, 2019 Unpublished Decision Now Partially Published.             On September 9, 2019, we posted on then unpublished decision in Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles, which dealt with the Bane Act/Whistleblower Retaliation victories, and $1,054,286.88 attorney’s fees award, obtained by two fired Department of Transportation hearing examiners who had sued the City of Los

Costs: Awarded Costs Of $199,464.98, Consisting Mostly Of Deposition Costs Incurred In Related Federal Proceeding, Upheld On Appeal Because Coordination Order Was At Play And Apportionment Among Actions Not Necessary

Cases: Costs

The Coordination Order Called For Extensive Discovery Coordination Among The Federal And State Court Actions Such That Costs Incurred For Depositions Noticed In The Federal Proceeding Were Incurred In The California Proceeding. 1921 Model T Ford             In In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II, Case No. A152893 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept.

Allocation, Homeowner Associations, Interest, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Standard of Review: Plaintiff Owner/Developer’s Award Of $1,673,691 In Damages and Entire Fee Request Upheld On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Interest, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

Defendant HOA’s Breach Of Owner/Developer’s Valid Contractual Access Rights Was The Common Core Involved In The Causes Of Action, So Apportionment Of Fees Not Required.             In Millennium-Diamond Road Partners v. Diamond Bar etc., Case No. B285539 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2019) (unpublished), Owner/Developer Millennium sued HOA when it revoked Millennium’s access

Appealability, Probate: Trustee’s Attorney’s Appeal Of Order Denying Fees Without Prejudice Was Not A Final Appealable Order

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Probate

Appeal Was Dismissed, But Attorney Could Renew Request In Civil Court.             In Katzen v. Callan, Case No. G055985 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 23, 2019) (unpublished), the 4/3 DCA—in an opinion authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary—dismissed an appeal by a trustee’s former attorney denying a fee request because the denial was without prejudice.  So,

Family Law: Family Law Judge’s Failure To Allow Argument Over, Much Less Address, Needs-Based Fee Request, After Agreeing To Bifurcate Same For Determination, Reversed On Due Process Grounds

Cases: Family Law

Surprise, Last-Minute Reversal In Tentative Decision Required A Reversal.             Due process required a reversal of a family law judge’s decision denying a needs-based fee request by ex-wife in Marriage of Bramhall and Melvoin, Case No. B288129 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 23, 2019) (unpublished).  The parties stipulated to bifurcation of a needs-based fees request,

Scroll to Top