Author name: Marc Alexander

Intellectual Property: U.S. Court Of Federal Claims Senior Judge Lettow Awards Significant Attorney’s Fees, Expert Fees, And Costs In Favor Of Successful Patent Infringement Plaintiff And Against The USA

Cases: Intellectual Property

Senior Judge Found That Litigation Funding Did Not Divest Plaintiff From Fee Recovery And That AIPLA Survey Of Hourly Rates Was Most Relevant Starting Point For Gauging Rates.            Because litigation funding is becoming an increasingly used tool to allow plaintiffs to prosecute complex civil cases, we post on FastShip LLC v. U.S., No. 12-484C […]

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity: Narrow Fee Clause, Allowing Recovery In Arbitration Only, Did Not Confer Fee Recovery For Fees Relating To Litigation

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

Indemnity Clause Gave No Basis For Fee Recovery, Because It Was Unilateral In Favor Of Unsuccessful Party, Not Allowing For Fee Entitlement–$628,587.50 In Fees Went Away!             In Club Acacia Community Assn. v. Professional Community Management of California, Inc., Case No. G056313 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 11, 2019) (unpublished), a long-time dispute between an

Appeal Sanctions, Arbitration: Broad Operating Agreement Fees Clause Justified $238,000 Fees/Costs Award To Arbitration Prevailing Party, Plus Fees For Winning On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Arbitration

Appealing Party Just Avoided Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, But Fees On Appeal Found To Be The Appropriate Remedy.             Walters v. Boustead Securities, LLC, Case No. G056250 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 11, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting Fourth District, Division 3 opinion affirming a $238,000 fees/costs arbitration award in favor of a prevailing party

Discovery, Family Law: $2,500 Discovery Sanctions Order Reversed In Favor Of Responding, Prevailing Party Because No Competent Declaration Of Incurred Expenses Was Presented

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Family Law

CCP § 2023.040 Was The Key Statutory Provision.             Just to show you that technicalities can matter in the discovery area, the First District, Division 2 reversed a $2,500 discovery sanction against ex-wife in Marriage of Stupp v. Schilders, Case No. A154396 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 10, 2019) (unpublished).  What happened is that a

Appeal Sanctions: 2/4 DCA Imposes $21,366 Against Counsel Payable To Other Side And $8,500 Payable To Appellate Clerk For Frivolous Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Appealing Nonappealable And Abuse Of Discretion Orders Led To The Result.             In Turner v. The Rule Co., Case Nos. B248667 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 10, 2019) (unpublished), an appeal was taken from several nonappealable orders and discovery sanctions/routine costs orders where abuse of discretion was the governing review standard.  The appellate

Homeowner Associations: Homeowners Were Not Catalysts For Easement Agreement Assumption, Because They Wanted A More Expansive Amendment

Cases: Homeowner Associations

HOA Was Prevailing Party Under Easement Agreement Fees Clause, Awarded Its Fully Requested $51,460 In Fees.              In Lemley v. Aliso Homeowners Assn., Inc., Case No. B288789 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 3, 2019; posted July 5, 2019) (unpublished), HOA and homeowners got entangled in an easement agreement dispute in which homeowners wanted specific performance/declaratory

Sanctions: $16,000 CCP § 128.7 Sanction Against Successor Counsel, Based On Motion Not Specifying The Improper Conduct Before He Formally Substituted In, Was Reversed

Cases: Sanctions

Simply Filing A Declaration Saying “Retained” Was Not Tantamount To Presentation Of Complaint Filed By Predecessor Counsel.            Timing can be everything, and it was in the next case considering a CCP § 128.7 sanctions award in Primo Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Haney, Case No. B283030 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 5, 2019) (published).            

Section 1717: Borrower’s California Homeowners Bill Of Rights Claims Were Not “On The Contract” For Civil Code Section 1717 Fee Recovery Purposes

Cases: Section 1717

Borrower Did Not Invoke Directly The Terms of Agreements With Fee Clauses.             In Thomas v. Seterus, Inc., Case No. A155170 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 2, 2019) (unpublished), lenders moved for post-trial attorney’s fees based on note and trust deed fees clauses against a borrower bringing claims based on the California Homeowners Bill of

Fee Clause Interpretation: “Collection Costs” Fees Clause Of A Narrow Nature Was Interpreted Against Drafting Party And Did Not Include Fees For Defending Counterclaims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Award Remanded For A Restudy, But A 50% Reduction For Overlitigation By Prevailing Party Likely Stands On Remand.            To take us back to law school days, contra proferentem is Latin for interpreting a contract against the drafter.  That principle was at play in contractual interpretation of the scope of a lender fees clause

Consumer Statutes, Multipliers: $327,782.75 Lemon Law Fee Award, Inclusive Of A 1.5 Positive Multiplier, Affirmed On Appeal Where $109,357.05 Was Compensatory Award

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Multipliers

Plaintiff’s Counsel Showed Why Defense Maneuvers And Jury Verdict Made The Case Beyond A Typical Lemon Law Case.             We have said this frequently in the past on prior blogs, but for clients and practitioners defending Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “lemon law” cases, you need to be attuned to fee exposure, including positive multipliers, when

Scroll to Top