Author name: Marc Alexander

Undertaking: Prevailing Defendant On Appeal Entitled To Recovery Surety Bond/Letter Of Credit Premium Costs, With Trial Judge Determining That This Was A Reasonable Option

Cases: Undertaking

Defendant Does Not Have To Choose Best Option For Appealing Plaintiff, With Lost Opportunity Costs To Defendant Being A Factor To Consider.             In Rostack Investments, Inc. v. Sabella, Case No. B286069 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 5, 2019) (published), plaintiff obtained a substantial summary judgment which was reversed on appeal, with the appellate court […]

Intellectual Property: Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Decides That Defense Not Entitled To “Prevailing Party” Status Under Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Where Plaintiff Dismissed Federal Suit Without Prejudice And Refiled In State Court

Cases: Intellectual Property

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D) Fee-Shifting Statute Was At Issue.             Dunster Live LLC v. Lonestar Logos Management Co., LLC, 908 F.3d 948 (5th Cir. 2018) was a situation where a plaintiff filed a trade secret misappropriation suit in federal court under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). After it lost an injunction, plaintiff moved to

Family Law: $7,500 Needs-Based And 217 Sanctions Awards To Ex-Husband Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

Lack Of Fee Hearing Reporters’ Transcripts Sealed The Correctness Of The Orders.             The Third District, in Marriage of Samorano, Case Nos. C084143/C086540 (3d Dist. February 5, 2019) (unpublished), affirmed $7,500 in fees and sanctions awards in favor of ex-husband and against ex-wife under Family Code sections 2032 (needs-based provision) and 271 (sanctions provision). The

Appealability, Private Attorney General: Where Trial Judge Only Struck Private Attorney General Entitlement Language Inserted In A Proposed Judgment, But Did Not Preclude A Further Fee Motion, Appeal Of The “Striking” Action Was Premature

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

There Was No Ruling To Be Appealed From.             In Kottler v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B278276 (2d Dist., Div. 1 February 4, 2019) (unpublished), next door neighbors successfully obtained mandamus over a zoning adjustment made in favor of another neighbor. Petitioners submitted a proposed judgment indicating that they were entitled to fees

Family Law: Needs-Based Analysis Similar To That Under Family Code Section 2032 Used To Review Denial Of Fees To Mother Under Family Code Section 7605

Cases: Family Law

Section 7605 Deals With Proceedings Involving Child Custody/Visitation.             In Darab N. v. Olivera, Case No. B282972 (2d Dist., Div. 1 February 4, 2019) (published), child’s mother appealed denial of her request for $100,000 in attorney’s fees under Family Code section 7605 relating to her efforts to defend against motions to quash brought by father

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Lower Court Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Doctor In Staff Privilege Suspension/Termination Case Against Hospital Because Hospital’s Defense Was Not Completely Frivolous In Nature

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Business and Professions Code Section 809.9 Was The Fee Shifting Statute.             In Economy v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals, Case Nos. A150211 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 February 4, 2019) (published), defendants hospital were found to have improperly suspended/terminated a physician without a proper hearing under Business and Professions Code section 809 et seq,

Family Law: Family Code Section 3111(b) Justified $50,000 Sanctions Against Attorney, But Not Client, For Disclosing Confidential Child Custody Evaluation Report

Cases: Family Law

2/6 DCA Remembers That Attorneys Are Both Zealous Advocates And Officers Of The Court.             Presiding Justice Gilbert, in Marriage of Anka & Yeager, Case No. B281760 (2d Dist., Div. 6 February 4, 2019) (published), reminds licensed attorneys that we are both zealous advocates and officers of the court. The appellate court affirmed a trial

Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed Because Disputed Factual Issues Does Not Mean The Litigation Was Frivolous

Cases: Sanctions

$3,500 Sanctions Award Was At Issue.             Justice Bendix, the author of Osborn v. Saucedo, Case No. B283605 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 1, 2019) (unpublished), reminds trial judges that litigation is not frivolous where there are disputed issues of fact even if they might be somewhat slim in nature. A $3,500 sanctions award under

Civil Rights, Multiplier: FEHA Plaintiff’s Appeal Of A Reduced Fee Award Did Not Result In Any Change

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

Hourly Rates Were Too High, Case Was Overprepared, And Limited Success Before The Jury Supported Lower Court’s Reduced Award.             FEHA plaintiff in Check v. Raley’s, Case No. A153906 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 31, 2019) (unpublished) won $119,211 on some claims, later requesting the trial court to award her $1,109,107 in fees. The lower

Private Attorney General: CEQA Plaintiffs Obtaining Mandamus To Require Preparation Of An EIR Entitled Them To An Award Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Public Benefit Was Clear When CEQA Policies Were Vindicated.             In Oakdale Groundwater Alliance v. Oakdale Irrig. Dist., Case No. F077281 (5th Dist. Jan. 31, 2019) (unpublished), CEQA plaintiffs obtained mandamus requiring that District prepare a full-blown environmental impact report (EIR), rather than just a negative declaration, and prepare a better study on the environmental

Scroll to Top