Author name: Marc Alexander

Interest, Judgment Enforcement: Reversal Of Judgment And Remand, Which Really Was An Upward Modification, Required That Interest On The Attorney’s Fees Award Should Run From The Date Of Original Judgment

Cases: Interest, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Substance Of The Order Was Determinative.             In Pacifica Companies LLC v. Patel, Case No. D074358 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 23, 2019) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA in an earlier decision reversed a trial judge order denying a request for contractual attorney’s fees based upon a letter of intent agreement, remanding so that the trial […]

Class Actions: Summer 2019 Litigation News Article Tells What Class Action Issues Are Spiking In 2018-2019 With Respect To Frequency

Cases: Class Actions

Has Implications For Fees, Given Statute And Equitable Principles Allowing For Fee Recovery.             An article by Daniel S. Wittenberg, “Class Action Spending Reaches 10-Year High” in the Summer 2019 edition of the ABA’s Litigation News, provides some interesting insights into the class action cases which are prevalent and frequently expose defendants to attorney’s fees/costs

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Napa County Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees And Costs In Public Nuisance Abatement Action

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Napa County Code Section Allowed For Prevailing Party Fees And Government Code Section 25845(b) Allowed For County’s Recoupment Of Expert Fees.             In County of Napa v. Silver, Case No. A146586 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 20, 2019) (unpublished), Napa County won a public nuisance abatement action against appellants involving the European grapevine moth and

Partition: 4/3 DCA, In Unpublished Decision, Allows Trial Court To Apportion Fees/Costs Following A Partition Sale Based On Equitable Circumstances

Cases: Partition

Panel Follows Lin Rather Than Finney On This Issue.             Although the particular facts are not that scintillating for posting purposes, Rahgoshay v. Luo, Case No. G056735 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 19, 2019) (unpublished), authored by Justice Fybel, does show how it lined up on the standard to be followed for purposes of apportioning

Arbitration, Employment: 4/3 DCA Affirms Lower Court’s Denial Of Motion To Compel Arbitration Because, Among Other Things, Arbitration Clause Gave Arbitrator Mandatory Authority To Award Fees To Employer Even Where Fee-Shifting Statutes Favored Employe

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment

Mandatory Language Of Fee Clause Demonstrated Substantive Unconscionability, Which Was Not Supplanted By More General Reference To JAMS Employment Rules Which Were More Discretionary In Nature.             We commend employment attorneys to read Randall v. Veros Credit, LLC, Case No. G056463 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 17, 2019) (unpublished), where a trial judge denied an

Fee Clause Interpretation, Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Subhauler Winning Net Judgment Of $19,113.84 Was Properly Awarded Contractual Fees Of $100,415

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Contractual Fees Do Not Have To Be Proportional And Unsuccessful Efforts Can Be Awarded.             In Cheema v. L.S. Trucking, Inc., Case Nos. A150234/A151044 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 17, 2019) (published), plaintiff, a subhauler for defendant trucking company, won affirmative recovery in the form of a net judgment of $19,113.84.  There was a broad

POOF!, Sanctions: $70,548.95 CCP § 128.5 Order Against Most Plaintiffs Reversed Based On Erroneous Denial Of Relief From Jury Trial Waiver

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Sanctions

Also, Another Plaintiff Was Not Give Safe Harbor Notice In Time To Do Anything—So, A Reversal.             The importance of the jury trial right was front and center in Mackovksa v. Viewcrest Road Properties, Case No. B288778 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 18, 2019) (published), although the ultimate merits reversal also made a reversal of

Eminent Domain: Litigation Expense Properly Denied To Condemnee Who Accepted Condemnor Caltrans’s Final Offer Of $5,500 Before Trial In Settlement, Only $500 Less Than Condemnee’s Final Settlement Demand

Cases: Eminent Domain

Small Differential Led Appellate Court Majority To Affirm Trial Court’s Litigation Expense Denial, While Concurring Justice Should Hold That Acceptance Of Caltrans’s Actual Final Offer Was Reasonable As A Matter Of Law.             In People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Karimi, Case No. E069448 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 16, 2019, posted Sept. 17,

Consumer Statutes, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Judge Did Not Abuse His Discretion By Awarding $73,864 In Lemon Law Fees Out Of A Requested $191,688.75

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Case Settled For $85,000, With Duplicative Efforts Properly Justifying Lower Court Reduction And With 2/7 DCA Panel Disagreeing With Another Court That Particular Reduction Articulation Applied Outside Of Civil Rights Context.             Morris v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. B290693 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 16, 2019) (unpublished) is a situation where the trial judge

Probate: Former Trustee Properly Surcharged With Attorney’s Fees For Bad Faith Trustee Conduct Relating To Contesting Accounting Objections/Presenting Unsupported Objections To Successor Trustee’s Accountings

Cases: Probate

However, Lack Of Admissible Evidence Did Require A $78,000 Reduction In The Total Surcharges.             Justice Fybel in Bronson v. Jones, Case No. G055462 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 13, 2019) (unpublished), except in two respects, affirmed a lower court’s surcharging of a former trustee’s attorney’s fees based on her bad faith conduct as a

Scroll to Top