Author name: Marc Alexander

Fees as Damages, Landlord/Tenant, Poof!: After Punitive Damages Reduction Of Almost $56 Million, Plaintiffs Walk Away With Judgment Of More Than $5 Million, But Watch It All Go POOF! On Appeal

Cases: Fees as Damages, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: POOF!

No Segregation Between Properly And Erroneously Awarded Amounts Meant Plaintiffs Lost The Full Amounts Of Their Awards For Compensatory Damages Of $1,289,000, Punitive Damages Of $1,289,000, Attorney Fees Of $2,385,773.70 and Costs Of $56,417.72         In Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, Case No. D071849, (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 28, 2019) (unpublished), sixty-nine current […]

Poof!, Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Trial Court Win Of $289,908 In Attorney’s Fees And $1,963 In Costs Goes POOF! On Appeal As Plaintiff Failed To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Under The California Environmental Quality Act

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Failure To Object To The Project Before The City Council Approved It Meant Plaintiff Lacked Standing To Challenge The City’s Project Approval In Court         In Turn Down the Lights v. City of Monterey, Case Nos. H044656/H045556 (6th Dist., February 28, 2019) (unpublished), Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate on City’s determination that

Cases Under Review: SCOTUS Will Decide If USPTO Can Charge Its Internal Attorneys’ Expenses Against A Rejected Patent Applicant In 35 U.S.C. Section 145 District Court Proceeding

Cases: Cases Under Review

Case Centers Upon The Meaning Of “All The Expenses Of The Proceeding.”     On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari with respect to a Federal Circuit opinion in order to wrestle with this issue:  “Whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. Section 145 encompasses the personnel

COSTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: SCOTUS Decides That Litigation Expenses Are Not Recoverable By Prevailing Copyright Infringement Plaintiff Unless Covered By General Federal Costs Statutes

Cases: Costs, Cases: Intellectual Property

$12.8 Million Litigation Expense Award Remanded For A Re-Do.        In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., No. 17-1625 (U.S. March 4, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a $12.8 million litigation expense award—inclusive of expert witness, e-discovery, and jury consulting expenses—was properly found by a district court to be a justifiable award

Assignment, Interpleader: Law Firm Loses Its First Priority Position For Failing To Perfect Security Interest In Assignment, And Gets The Privilege Of Paying Interpleader Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees To Boot

Cases: Assignment, Cases: Interpleader

Code of Civil Procedure Section 697.590 governed this one.         MDQ, LLC v. Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP, Case No. B283025 (2d Dist., Div. 8 February 27, 2019) (published) provides a valuable lesson in the importance of perfecting assigned security interests through the filing of a financing statement pursuant to Division 9

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Plaintiff Prevails On Breach Of Contract Claims, But Is Denied Entire Attorney’s Fees Request Of $1.38 Million Due To Lack Of Attorney’s Fees Provision In Contract Under Which It Sued

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff Was Unable To Demonstrate That Later Contract With Fees Provisions Was Applicable To Earlier Contract Under Which It Sued.         Applied General Agency, Inc. v. Chinese Community Health Plan, Case No. G055669 (4th Dist., Div. 3 February 27, 2019) (unpublished) involved a Plaintiff insurance agency and a Defendant/Cross-Complainant insurance provider who each sued each

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Lopsided Results Entitled Plaintiff Who Obtained Greater Relief To Fees As The Prevailing Party Under Civil Code Section 1717 Based On A Contractual Fees Clause In Written Construction Agreement

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Trial Court’s Discretionary Decision Of No Prevailing Party Reversed On Appeal         In Advent Companies, Inc. v. SJC II/Fourth and Haven, LLC, Case No. G055609 (4th Dist., Div. 3 February 27, 2019) (unpublished), a general contractor Plaintiff and property owner/developer Defendant/Cross-Complainant entered into a written construction agreement for Plaintiff to build a 298-unit apartment complex

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Reversal Of Fees Awarded To Borrowers Who Obtained Temporary Restraining Order Enjoining A Non-Judicial Foreclosure Sale But Submitted Procedurally Defective Fee Request

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

Remand For Further Proceedings Gives Borrowers A Second Chance At Fees Allowed Under Civ. Code § 2924.12 (h) If They Choose To Bring Properly Noticed Motion         Section 2924.12 was enacted in 2012, and is commonly known as the Homeowner Bill of Rights. It was intended to address California’s foreclosure crisis and prohibit against “dual

Employment, Private Attorney General: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion Nor Err In Denying Fees And Costs To Plaintiffs Under PAGA

Cases: Employment, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Prevailed At Trial On Their California Labor Code Section 1102.5 Claims, But Failed To Pursue Their PAGA Section 2699 Claim, Thereby Sealing Their Fate For PAGA-Related Fees and Costs         In order to prevail on a PAGA-related fees and costs motion, a plaintiff first has to pursue a PAGA claim and prevail.         In

Scroll to Top