Author name: Marc Alexander

Civil Rights, Costs, Employment, Section 998: Where Thrust Of Losing Plaintiff’s Suit Was A FEHA Claim, Trial Court Properly Refused To Award CCP § 998 Costs To Winning Defendant Despite Loss On Non-FEHA Whistleblower Claim

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Prominence Of Suit Prevailed, Plus Appellate Court Offers Tips On What Trial Courts Ought To Follow When There Is A Split In Intermediate Appellate Thought On An Issue.             In Thiry v. Pet Partners, Inc., Case No. E070851 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 20, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a mixed FEHA/whistleblower/UCF suit based on allegations […]

Probate: Where Beneficiary’s Petition For Distribution/Accounting Seen As Driven More By Emotion Than Necessity, Denial Of Attorney’s Fees For Getting Some Results Not Erroneous

Cases: Probate

Probate Court’s Conclusion Of No Bad Faith By Trustee Was Factual And Deferential Standard Meant It Was Held Up On Appeal.             The opinion in Mappus v. Mendonca, Case No. A149974 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 20, 2019) (unpublished) demonstrates that motives for probate proceedings do make a difference and that a lower court determination

Appealability: Appellant’s Failure To Specify Appeal From Postjudgment Order Denying Motion To Tax Costs Did Not Encompass Award Of CCP § 998 Expert Fees To Defendants, Requiring Dismissal Of The Appeal

Cases: Appealability

Appellant Sealed His Fate Based On Oral Argument Concessions.             Gallegos v. Tesoro Sierra Properties, LLC, Case No. B282757 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2019) (unpublished) is a case where an appeal was dismissed for lack of clarity in what was included in the notice of appeal.  Appellant only appealed a judgment and then

Employment: $6,845.50 Fee Award Against Unsuccessful Plaintiff Ex-Employee In Labor Commissioner Appeal Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Employment

Fee Entitlement Existed And Amount Of Requested Fees Was Reasonable In Nature.             In Gonzalez v. Lucky Seven Dragons, Inc., Case No. B289269 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 20, 2019) (unpublished), in pro per plaintiff, ex-employee appealed an adverse Labor Commissioner decision in favor of ex-employer.  Plaintiff gained nothing on his appeal to

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar: Lodestar Analysis Governs A Song-Beverly Act Fee Recovery Despite A Contingency Fee Arrangement

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar

Contingency Fee Arrangement Has Probative Value, But It Is No Dispositive Indicator.             Litigants and their counsel in lemon law cases must keep in mind that the there is an attorney’s fees shifting provision, Civil Code section 1794(d), which allows fees to the prevailing product buyer “based on actual time reasonably expended, determined by the

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Fraud-Based Claim Upon Narrow Unilateral Fees Clause Was Not Broad Enough To Allow Fees To Prevailing Fraud Plaintiffs

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

However, Appellate Court Reversal Of Guaranty Rescission Denial Did Trigger Fee Recovery Under Broad Bilateral Fees Clause.             If readers follow us over the years (or if you are new to us, welcome), the actual wording of a contractual attorney’s fees clause can be critical in terms of whether it allows fee entitlement.  The disparate

Mediation: Less Than Compulsory Mediation Clause Was Satisfied Even Though Cross-Complaint Filed Without Additional Mediation By Prevailing Party Actually Participating In Mediation On The Complaint

Cases: Mediation

Fee Award Of $375,813 In Capital Call Dispute Affirmed In Favor Of Prevailing Party.             Ocean Tomo, LLc v. PatentRatings, LLC, Case Nos. G055429/G056063/G056829 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 13, 2019) (unpublished) shows how the wording of a mediation condition precedent clause can be determinative with respect to fee qualification.             A prevailing party in

Landlord/Tenant: $2,503,141 Fee Award To San Francisco Under Rent Ordinance And Health & Safety Fee Provisions Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Fee Entitlement Bases Existed, And Amount Of Fee Award Was Not Erroneous.             Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(b)(1) has a mandatory fees and actual costs provision to be applied for State Housing Law violations where the lower court finds a building substantially endangers residents’ health and safety.  San Francisco has a Rent Ordinance (Adm.

Scroll to Top