Author name: Marc Alexander

Arbitration, Section 998: California Supreme Court Announces Bright-Line Rule For Presentation of Rejected CCP § 998 Offers To Arbitrators—Within 15 Days After Issuance Of Final Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 998

However, Arbitrator Still Has Wide-Ranging Discretion To Allow Costs-Shifting Or Not.             The California Supreme Court, in Heimlich v. Shivji, Case No. S243029 (Cal. Supreme Court May 30, 2019), in a 7-0 opinion authored by Justice Corrigan, established a bright-line rule for presentation of a rejected CCP § 998 offer to an arbitrator for fee/cost-shifting […]

Appealability: Denial Of Motion To Compel Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act Arbitration Is Not An Appealable Order

Cases: Appealability

2/1 DCA Also Refuses To Treat It As An Extraordinary Writ Petition From The Denial Order.             The Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) establishes a system for a client to arbitrate attorney’s fee disputes before local bar associations, with it being mandatory for attorneys if clients so initiate an arbitration but optional if clients do

Settlement: Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms $10,875 Fee Award To FDCPA/FCRA Prevailing Plaintiff Who Requested $187,410 In Fees But Won Only $1,000 In Damages

Cases: Settlement

Rejection Of FRCP 68 Offers And Unnecessary Running Up Of Fees Sustained The District Judge’s Conclusion Below.             This next case is a cautionary warning for all litigants and their attorneys—settlement is sometimes the only reasonable option when the defense makes every effort to do so.  Here are the beginning two sentences of the opinion

Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court’s Allowance Of Reduced Lodestar For Individual Cross-Defendant’s Win On Alter Ego Issue Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Simplicity Of Issue And Minimal Time Expended On It Justified The Final Fee Award.             In a commercial lease dispute where the sole owner of landlord was sued as an alter ego via cross-complaint, sole owner won and was awarded $12,250 in fees and $703.23 in costs, but less than he wanted.  Owner appealed to

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 998: Parking Lot Operator Entitled To Attorney’s Fees From Losing Lessee, But Whether Expert Witness Fees Allowed Had To Be Determined On Remand

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 998

Trial Court Erroneously Allowed Them Under CCP § 998, But Parking Lot Contract Clause Needed To Be Restudied On Remand To See If Operator Obtains Expert Witness Fees.             In PCAM, LLC v. Bally Total Fitness of California, Inc., Case No, B277637/B285308 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), parking lot owner, operator, and

Homeowner Associations: Homeowner Prevailing In Unlawful Foreclosure Of Condo Unit Case Was Entitled To $434,000 In Damages And $720,000 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Homeowner Associations

Both Civil Code Section 1354 (Now Section 5975) And CC&R Fee Clause Were In Play.              Yikes!  Talk about a change in fortune based on a prior appeal.  Homeowner finally won, obtaining damages and substantial attorney’s fees for hanging in there to the end.             In Multani v. Castle Green Homeowners Assn., Case No.

Costs, Employment: Defendant Winning Against Plaintiff’s Employment-Based Claims, Although Losing Cross-Claims, Entitled To Routine Costs, But Not Costs Under Labor Code Section 218.5

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

No Finding That Claims Made Or Prosecuted In Bad Faith Failed To Trigger Section 218.5 Cost-Shifting.             Plaintiff and defendant/cross-complainant lost both of their suits after a bench trial, plaintiff losing wage/hour claims and cross-complainant losing fiduciary duty/joint venture cross-claims.  The lower court determined both sides should bear their own costs, with no determination made

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $101,848.75 Fees/Costs Award Under Lemon Law Statute Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Underlying Settlement Amount Was $40,197.88.             We have many times posted that attorney’s fees/costs can easily eclipse the underlying merits determination.   Here we have a case demonstrating that exact result in a car “lemon law” case.             In Muro v. Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No. B285747 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Defendant Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Really Obtained All Of Its Relief As The Prevailing Party Under Broad Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Defendant Was Denied Fees, But It Did Not Independently Appeal—Maybe Should Have!             In MBK Properties LLC v. San Diego Beer Co., Inc., Case No. G055856 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), seller/plaintiff sold a commercial parcel to buyer/defendant under a written purchase and sale agreement (PSA) which had a contractual fees clause

Scroll to Top