Author name: Marc Alexander

Fee Clause Interpretation, Poof!, Trade Secrets: Defendant Defeating Contractual Damages Claims Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Where Fees Clause Only Applied To Equitable/injunctive Relief Wins

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Trade Secrets

Results Is That $533,086.19 Fee Award Went POOF! On Appeal.                 The next case is a continuation of a case we earlier posted on, Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 556, discussed in our March 11, 2024 post.  There, plaintiff obtained preliminary and then later permanent injunctions against defendant in a trade […]

Section 1717: Nonsignatories, When Sued As If They Were Parties, Were Entitled To Prevailing Party Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause Pursuant To Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717

Case Counsels Against Suing Brokers And Agents Under Boilerplate “Agent/Employee” Pleading Allegations As If They Are Parties.                The result in Dow v. Burrell, Case No. B330855 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) is a case where a disgruntled residential buyer plaintiff sued seller (who was defaulted) and his brokers, agents, and their

Discovery, Sanctions: Appellate Court Determines That Litigant Not Filing A Written Opposition To A Discovery Sanctions Motion Is Not Guaranteed A Right To Oral Argument

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Nothing In The Discovery Sanctions Or Other Law Mandates That Result.                A cross-complainant in Bogota Corp. v. Seiden, Case No. B332296 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) had discovery sanctions imposed for deficient special interrogatory responses after filing no written opposition to the discovery sanctions motion.  On appeal, he argued that he

Private Attorney General: Petitioner Was Correctly Denied 1021.5 Fee For Obtaining Removal Of His Name From Gang Law Enforcement List

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Petitioner Vindicated Mainly His Personal Interests And No Broad Pernicious Policy Proven Against L.A.’s Sheriff Department.                Petitioner sought private attorney general fees in Richardson v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dept., Case No. B333555 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) against the LASD after obtaining a court order removing his name as a suspected

Fee Clause Interpretation: Tenant Winning Damages Under Municipal Code And Statutory Provisions Properly Awarded Fees Even Though Rental Agreement Precluded Fee Recovery On Contractual Claims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Statutory Entitlement To Fees Was Independent From Recovery Under A Contractual Fees Clause.                In Dostie v. Marowitz, Case Nos. A168780 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 22, 22, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff tenant won $60,000 in damages against defendant former landlord for failure to maintain the premises, gender discrimination, and emotional distress.  Defendant landlord

Family Law, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $43,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Petitioner In An Extensive DVRO Proceeding Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Current Version Of Family Code Section 6344 Is Retroactive To Cases Pending On Its Effective Date, With Fee Award Not Being Seen As Excessive In Nature.                Prevailing petitioner (ex-wife) was awarded $43,000 in attorney’s fees imposed upon her ex-husband under Family Code section 6344 in a DVRO proceeding.  That award was affirmed on appeal

Judgment Enforcement: Judgment Creditor Entitled To Contempt Attorney’s Fees And Costs Against Person In Post-Judgment Enforcement Proceeding, Even Though That Person Was Not A Litigant In The Underlying Lawsuit

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

CCP § 1218 Was The Governing Statute Allowing For This Result.                 In Ofek Rachel, Ltd. v. Zion, Case No. B333959 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2024) (published), a person who was not a litigant in an underlying lawsuit was found guilty of contempt in post-judgment enforcement proceedings, ordered to pay the judgment creditor

Sanctions: CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Of $7,500 Reversed On Multiple Grounds

Cases: Sanctions

Case Is A Primer On Procedural And Substantive Requirements To Meet Under 128.5.                In Ramirez v. Ramirez, Case No. B336369 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 18. 2024) (unpublished), appellant in a probate case obtained a reversal of a $7,500 CCP § 128.5 sanctions award in favor of respondent with respect to appellant’s request to

Appeal Sanctions: $8,500 To Appellate Clerk Was Appeal Sanctions

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Lower Court Will Determine Amount To Prevailing SLAPP Litigant On Appeal.                Just to show you how appeal sanctions are increasing, the appellate court in NBoordhof v. Armstrong, Case No. B331078 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 14, 2024) (unpublished) determined that a frivolous appeal should result in the punished litigant paying $8,500 to the appellate

Insurance: Brandt Fees Properly Denied Where No Policy Benefits Claimed, Just Insurer Claim For Reimbursement Based On No Bad Faith Investigation

Cases: Insurance

Theory Of Recovery Is Key In This Area.                Many times, the theory of recovery is a key for attorney’s fees recoupment.  That is more so when an insured requests Brandt fees, with the theory needing to be calibrated to policy benefit recovery by the insured.  That did not happen in William Lyon Homes, Inc.

Scroll to Top