Author name: Marc Alexander

Equity, Section 998: Lower Court’s Discretionary Decision To Vacate A Dismissal Of An Action Based On A Mistaken Defense CCP § 998 Offer Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 998

Defense Offer Of $100,000, Rather Than $10,000, Was A Typographical Mistake Worthy Of Correction Where Defense Counsel Notified Plaintiff Of Error Within Three Minutes.                For litigators, we all know we are not perfect, with mistakes being made based on the volume of cases we process.  The next case, Avila v. John N. Kitta and

Deadlines: Plaintiff Dismissing Certain Defendants Without Prejudice Triggered 60 Day Rule To Bring Attorney’s Fees Motion

Cases: Deadlines

Plaintiff Failed To Timely File A Fee Motion 60 Days After Dismissal Was Entered.                With no need to go through the details, Animal Protection and Rescue League, Inc. v. Marengo, Case No. D082607 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 16, 2024) (unpublished) should remind practitioners filing a dismissal without prejudice on behalf of a plaintiff

Appealability: Failure To Appeal Order Denying Motion To Tax Expert Witness Fees Under CCP § 998 And Granting 128.5 Sanctions Over $5,000 Against Multiple Parties Means The Appeal Of Those Orders Had To Be Dismissed

Cases: Appealability

Another Lesson We Have Preached:  Appeal Separate Costs And Sanctions Orders.                In Abelar v. Providence Health System-Southern California, Case No. B321885 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 13, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a medical malpractice case against numerous defendants, with the lower court imposing CCP § 128.5 sanctions of $11,425 against plaintiff’s counsel as to

Employment: Lower Court’s Denial Of Whistleblower Fees, Under Amended Fee Shifting Provision, Was Erroneous Because Newer Legislative Statute Was Retroactive In Nature Absent A Clear Direction Otherwise

Cases: Employment

$1.854 Million Fee Request Had To Be Reconsidered—Appellate Court Had No Opinion On Amount To Be Awarded.                Winston v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B323392 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 13, 2024) (published) is a case where a plaintiff whistleblower eventually prevailed during a jury trial, awarded $257,000 in damages against employer.  Employee

Appealability, Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation: Lower Court’s Grant Of Expert Fee Costs To Defendant And Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defendant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Lack Of Adequate Record Doomed Both Appeals, But They Also Failed On The Merits.                In Paige v. Nolan, Case No. B322162 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 13, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff refused a CCP § 998 offer in a legal malpractice case, with defendant attorney winning.  The lower court did award attorney some expert witness

Family Law, Sanctions: $222,952 Fee Award To Ex-Husband Under Family Code Section 271 For Prevailing In A Vigorously Contested DVRO Proceeding Was Proper

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Lower Court Did Consider Ex-Wife’s Ability To Pay, Ordering It Be Paid $5,000/Month.                Family law litigants and practitioners should pay attention to how Family Code section 271 sanctions for failing to settle family law matters can be painful and a game changer as far as a litigant’s financial well-being.  Marriage of Detrick, Case No.

Discovery, Sanctions: Discovery Sanctions Reversed Where Moving Party Failed To Comply With Late Discovery Motion Dictates After The Discovery Cut-Off Date And Before Trial

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

CCP §§ 2024.020, 2024.050 Were Not Complied With, And That Was Prejudicial.                In Cooke v. Tayac, Case No. A170044 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 12, 2024) (unpublished), defendants moved for discovery sanctions after the discovery cut-off and formal close of discovery.  The lower court granted the defense motion for sanctions in the amount of

Costs, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Dismissing Case After Obtaining Nonmonetary Relief Requested During The Litigation May Be The Prevailing Party

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

Lower Court Erred In Not Granting Routine Costs Under Mandatory Prevailing Party Costs Provisions; But, On Remand, It Needed To Determine If Plaintiff Prevailed Under The Discretionary Prevailing Party Costs Provision.                Our title and subtitle above capture what happened in Fillerup v. Franchise Tax Board, Case No. C099158 (3d Dist. Dec. 11, 2024) (unpublished),

Allocation, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: Costs-Shifting Under CCP § 998 Displaced By More Specific Labor Code Provisions Relating To Costs For Or Against A Prevailing Employee

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

However, In Unpublished Part Of Decision, Appellate Court Affirmed A Small Fee Award Where Counsel Failed To Follow Lower Court’s Supplemental Briefing/Proof Instructions.                Chavez v. California Collision, LLC, Case No. A167658 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 10, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is part of a continuing trend for appellate courts to honor

Scroll to Top