Author name: Marc Alexander

Costs, Employment: Third Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms $319,655.80 Costs Award Against Named FLSA Plaintiffs For ESI Vendor TIFF Conversion And Platform Loading Production Activities

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Federal Appellate Court Dismisses Arguments That Costs Recovery Not Allowable Under FRCP Or FLSA, Or Was An Abuse of Discretion Under The Circumstances.            This next case is a harbinger for risk advice which plaintiff litigators should provide to putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) plaintiff clients, because these clients could be liable for certain […]

Family Law: Pont v. Pont Now Published

Cases: Family Law

Appellate Court Recognized Spin-Off Litigation Under Stipulated Settlement With A Fees Clause Could Give Rise To Fee Recovery Even Though Dissolution Case Venued Elsewhere.             In our December 22, 2018 post, we discussed Pont v. Pont, Case No. B284064, which was a 2/1 DCA decision which was unpublished at the time. The opinion upheld an

Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: $1,047,313.72 Contractual Fee Recovery To Defendants Was Not Excessive In Long-Running Litigation

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code Section 1717 Has No “Obligation-To-Pay” Requirement.             Defendants in Legendary Investors Group v. Niemann, Case No. B284736 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 16, 2019) (unpublished) prevailed in a long-running suit against plaintiff involving commercial loan and guaranty documents. Defendants, as prevailing parties, requested fees of $1,061,208.22, with the lower court awarding $1,047,313.72. Plaintiff

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: $53,791.79 Fees/Costs Award To Tenant And Against Landlord Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Fee Clause “Any Right” Language Allowed Tenant To Recover For Landlord’s Misrepresentations.             Zhang v. Cheung, Case No. B282132 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 16, 2019) (unpublished) involved a situation where a landlord won only $16,200 in damages for breach of a lease, while tenant won $30,078.85 in damages from landlord for intentional misrepresentation and

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: HOA Obtaining Preliminary Injunction To Aid Fumigation Of Separate Units Was Prevailing Party Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

Lower Court Fee Award And Appellate Fees Were Warranted In Favor OF The HOA.             Although we do not know the amount of fees awarded below, the homeowners in Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Assn. v. Lacher, Case No. D071799 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 16, 2019) (unpublished) obviously were dismayed when the lower court

Probate: Trust Beneficiary Obtaining Concrete Substantial Benefits On Behalf Of The Trust Was Entitled To Have $721,258.28 In Attorney’s Fees, Expert Fees, And Costs Paid From The Trust

Cases: Probate

2/6 DCA Has Nice Discussion Of Similarities And Differences Between The Substantial Benefit Versus Common Fund Theories Of Fee Recovery.           Generally, trust beneficiaries must pay their own attorney’s fees incurred in challenging a trustee’s conduct, even if they ultimately succeed. (Leader v. Cords, 182 Cal.App.4th 1588, 1595 (2010).) However, a court in its equitable discretion

Appealability: Expiration Of Restraining Order Did Not Moot Appeal Where Outcome On The Merits Could Determine Whether Prevailing Party Entitled To Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appealability

However, Merits Order Was Reversed, So No Fees Would Be Awarded To Prior Prevailing Party.             In Lall-Yepez v. Pukka, Case No. B283975 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 14, 2019) (unpublished), respondent won a civil harassment restraining order issued under CCP § 527.6 against appellant, who appealed. However, the restraining order expired by its terms,

Family Law: Ex-Husband Siphoning Off Equity In House Properly Assessed With Fiduciary Breach, 271, And Financial Disclosure Failure Sanctions

Cases: Family Law

No Abuse of Discretion Shown, With Appellate Court Reminding Practitioners That Fiduciary Breach Fee Sanctions Are Mandatory In Nature.             Ex-husband in Marriage of Tsatryan, Case Nos. B270784/B276299 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 14, 2019) (unpublished) was not happy with being hit with $65,000 in attorney’s fees sanctions under Family Code sections 1101(g) [for breach

Allocation, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: City Prevailing On Cross-Complaint Could Not Obtain Recovery Of Unilateral Inverse Condemnation Fees, Which Could Only Be Awarded To Losing Cross-Complainants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Apportionment Was Required In This Context, Plus A Relook At “Block Billing” Despite A 20% Reduction By The Trial Judge On The First Go-Around.             In City of Patterson v. Patterson Hotel Associates, Case No. F074038 (5th Dist. Jan. 11, 2019) (unpublished), City of Patterson prevailed on its complaint and defensed a cross-complaint involving a

Appealability, POOF!: Dismissed Defendants’ Later $155,182.50 Fee Award Went POOF! On Appeal Because Defendants Did Not Attempt To Correct Earlier Judgment Indicating No Fees Were To Be Awarded

Cases: Appealability, Cases: POOF!

Lower Court Had No Power To Change Prior Judgment And Then Award Fees.             The result in this case may sound harsh, but it appears to be legally sound.             In Schermer v. Upland Cascade, L.P., Case No. D072997 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 11, 2019) (unpublished), a first superior court judge “struck” class allegations

Scroll to Top