Author name: Marc Alexander

In The News . . . . Judge In Largest Ohio Libel Judgment Of $25 Million Awards Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Almost $6.3 Million In Attorney’s Fees And $300,000 In Expenses

In The News

Fee Award Included A Positive 1.5 Multiplier For Plaintiffs’ Counsel.             Gibson’s Bakery and its owners sued Ohio’s Oberlin College for libel/intentional infliction of emotional distress, winning a jury verdict of around $44 million (compensatory and punitive damages added together).  Later, Lorain County Common Pleas Judge John Miraldi reduced the judgment to $25 million—Ohio’s largest […]

Class Action: July 2019 Paper By Three Law Professors Study Fee Award Trends In Mega-Settlement Federal Class Action Securities Cases

Cases: Class Actions

Multiplier Trends And Attorney “Make Work” Conclusion Are Among The Takeaways.             Right around July 16, 2019, three law professors—Stephen J. Choi, Jessica Erickson and A.C. Pritchard–published a paper exploring fee recovery in federal securities cases involving big company defendants which result in mega-settlements.  They surveyed 1,719 federal securities cases between 2005 and 2016.   We

Costs, Requests For Admissions: Jane Doe Plaintiff Losing At Trial Based On A Nonsuit Properly Assessed With $19,500 In Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions And With Routine Costs Of $107,440.35

Cases: Costs, Cases: Requests for Admission

Respondents Conceded $6,988.27 In Claimed Costs Were Not Allowable.             Doe v. Dept. of Children & Family Services, Case No. B276699 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 18, 2019) (published; previously issued as unpublished on June 20, 2019) is a case demonstrating how respondents, on appeal, can gain appellate credibility by conceding a legal issue for

Consumer Statutes: 2/2 DCA Reverses 50% Reduction Of Requested Lodestar Fees To Prevailing Lemon Law Plaintiff Based On Plaintiff’s Rejection Of Informal Settlement Offer

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Defense Should Have Served A CCP §998 Offer As A Mechanism To Curb Requested Fees.             Plaintiff prevailed in a Song-Beverly Act auto case by accepting a settlement offer for $72,000 plus allowing the lower court to determine prevailing party fees to plaintiff.  (The settlement amount was almost twice the amount of the car.)  Earlier,

Section 998: Defense CCP § 998 Offer Was Too Uncertain Where It Referenced An Undisclosed Settlement Agreement With Releases To Plaintiff Offeror

Cases: Section 998

Offeree, Although Might Prudently Ask For Clarification, Is Under No Legal Obligation To Ask For Clarification Of Section 998 Offer.             The defense in an automobile personal injury accident case involving two plaintiffs made a CCP § 998 offer to the more severely injured plaintiff which was conditioned upon “the execution and transmittal of a

Special Fee Shifting Statute: County’s Adherence To Privileges And Exemptions Until Last Moment Did Not Prevent California Public Records Act Petitioner From Receiving Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Petitioner Was A Catalyst For Production Of Requested Documents.             California Public Records Act has a fee-shifting statute in favor of a prevailing party petitioner under Government Code section 6259(d), one which is liberally construed in order to encourage governmental entities to produce documents to the public except for ones which fall under certain restrictions/exemptions. 

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Governmental District Properly Awarded $8,160 In Discretionary Attorney’s Fees Against Plaintiff Losing Brown Act Challenge

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Wanted Agenda Detail Not Required Under The Brown Act.             In Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist., Case No. C086760 (3d Dist. July 15, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff’s Brown Act challenge against the District was blown out when the lower court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend.  The Brown Act has a discretionary fee-shifting

Scroll to Top