Author name: Marc Alexander

Construction, Section 1717: Defendant Prevailing On Only One Payment Withholding Issue Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Prompt Payment Statutes And Plaintiff Only Entitled To Reasonable Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff’s Request For Full Fees Ignores That Section 1717 Only Allow For Recovery Of Reasonable Fees.             Co-contributor Mike knew right away that McMahon Steel Co. v. Angeles Contractor, Inc., Case No. G054053 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 3, 2018) (unpublished) was written by Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth. Here is how it opens: “The […]

Class Action: New Amendments To F.R. Civ. P. 23 Became Effective 12/1/18

Cases: Class Actions

Among Others, District Judge Has To Approve Payment Or Consideration To Objectors Or Their Counsel For Withdrawing Objections Or Abandoning Appeals.             Effective December 1, 2018, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 23 was amended in several respects to clarify notice requirements relating to class action settlements, bulk up “preliminary approval” standards with added clarity,

Intellectual Property, Preemption, Prevailing Party: Defendants’ Prevailing On Preemption Claim Under State Statute With Mandatory Fees Clause Was Entitled To Appellate Fees For The Win

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Preemption, Cases: Prevailing Party

Even Though A Few Sliver Claims Remained, Defendants Prevailed Because Those Claims Are Not Subject To Fee Shifting.             The Ninth Circuit, in an earlier appeal, had decided that plaintiffs’ claims for resale royalties under the California Resale Royalties Act (CRRA) largely were preempted by the 1976 Copyright Act for any claims occurring after January

Consumer Statutes, Equity: Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms Denial Of Fees In Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Case Where Plaintiff Only Recovered $1,000 Statutory Damages But Sought Recovery Of $130,410 In Fees

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Equity

Fifth Circuit Sided With Two Other Circuits That Fees Can Be Denied In Unusual Circumstances, With Shocking Nature Of The Request Plus Conspiracy To Manufacture The Claim Solidifying The Fee Denial.             Davis v. Credit Bureau of the South, No. 17-41136 (5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018) (per curiam) demonstrates how federal courts, even under a

Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Calculation Of Benefits To Intervenors’ Retirees Was Overblown Such That The Whitley Financial Benefit/Cost Analysis Required A Remand To Award Section 1021.5 Fees To Intervenors

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$588,000 Fee Request Gets A Second Study, Based On Whitley And Other Factors.            In City of Oakland v. Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System, Case No. A144653 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 29, 2018) (published), intervenors sought to recover $588,000 in attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute (CCP § 1021.5) and the

Arbitration, Prevailing Party: Party Defeating Petition To Compel Arbitration, The Only Contractual Claim, Was Entitled To Fee Recovery Despite No Completed Arbitration On The Noncontract Claims

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

Finality Was Present With Respect To The One Contractual Issue, Justifying Civil Code Section 1717 Recovery.             In an earlier published decision, general contractor was found to have waived the right to compel arbitration in construction defect and mechanic’s lien cases which ultimately were consolidated. The winning party on the arbitrability dispute, the only contractual

Fee Clause Interpretation: Broad Settlement Agreement Fees Clause Allowed For Recovery Of Fees In Fraudulent Stripping Of Assets Case

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

$188,000, After About $86,000 Reduction, Was The Sustained Fee Award.             In Langer’s Delicatessen, Inc. v. Sino Enterprises, Inc., Case No. B287333 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 28, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff won an action for fraudulent stripping of assets by a defendant based on a prior judgment and a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement had

Homeowner Associations, Mediation, Reasonableness Of Fees: $225,000 Fee Recovery In Favor Of HOA And Against Losing Condo Owner Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Mediation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Mediation Requirement Did Not Apply To HOA-Owner Dispute, Owner Failed To Specifically Identify Objections Fees, And Lower Court Did Award Substantially Reduced Fees From The HOA’s Requests.             We have done many posts showing how HOAs or owners can be subject to substantial fee exposure for losing HOA-owner disputes. Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v.

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Counsel Declarations Sufficed To Justify $425,000 Fee Award In HOA’s Favor

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Losing Condo Owner’s Failure To Specify Excessive, Generic Time Entries Also Fatal.             The fee substantiation requirement in California state courts is much less than in federal courts. Federal courts favor submission of detailed timesheets, while attorney declarations and the trial judge’s perception of the work can indeed support fee recovery in California state courts.

Private Attorney General: Trial Judge’s Decision To Deny Fees To Plaintiff Creating Unemployment Insurance Dispute Legal Precedent Was Proper

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Adoption of Joshua S. Justified Denial Of The Fee Request.             Plaintiff in Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., Case No. C080183 (3d Dist. Nov. 27, 2018) (unpublished) won an unemployment insurance dispute, albeit on narrow grounds, before the California Supreme Court. However, the trial judge denied plaintiff’s request for private attorney general fee

Scroll to Top