Author name: Marc Alexander

Family Law: Family Law Judge’s Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Reversed And Remanded Based On “Double Dips,” Due Process Grounds, And Client Not Being Liable For Them

Cases: Family Law

Opinion Demonstrates That Fees Must Be Specifically Targeted To Independent Conduct Not Previously Sanctioned And To Conduct For Which Due Process Concerns Are Honored.             In Marriage of Bentley, Case No. H043593 (6th Dist. Nov. 13, 2018) (unpublished), the family law judge imposed various Family Code section 271 sanctions against ex-wife. Some of them were […]

In The News . . . . California PUC Says That San Onofre Settlement Was Not Fair And Challenges The $5.4 Million In Fees Paid To Firm Which Brokered The Deal

In The News

Ninth Circuit Has Not Taken Action Yet.             As reported by Jeff McDonald in a November 15, 2018 post in a local San Diego newspaper, the California Public Utilities Commission is asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to not dismiss an appeal contesting a settlement reached between certain parties contesting the amount that consumers

Section 1717: Lower Court Improperly Awarded Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiffs Under A Post-Dismissal Settlement Agreement Because Easement Dispute Was Contractual, Not Based On Tort Theories

Cases: Section 1717

Santisas Controlled The Result In This One.             In Cho v. Hamilton Court, LLC, Case No. B282399 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 13, 2018) (unpublished), parties reached a settlement agreement with a fees clause relating to any action or arbitration “to enforce the terms or conditions [of the easement agreement],” after dismissing a breach of

Fees as Damages: Copenbarger Opinion Now Published—Deals With Attorney’s Fees As Damages And How To Properly Authenticate Them At Trial

Cases: Fees as Damages, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

October 19, 2018 Unpublished Decision Now Published.             On October 20, 2018, we posted on the then unpublished decision in Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, Inc., which was authored by Justice Fybel of the 4/3 DCA. It dealt with whether breach of a settlement agreement fees were recoverable as damages versus costs (they were

Common Fund, Homeowner Associations, Section 1717: Developers Properly Denied $1.950 Million In Attorney’s Fees Against HOA Under Either Civil Code Section 1717 Or The Common Fund/Substantial Benefit Doctrine

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717

HOA Would Not Have Been Entitled To Fees If It Had Won, So Developers Did Not Prevail, With Equitable Doctrines Not Supplying An Anchor For An Award.             Market Lofts Community Assn. v. 9th Street Market Lofts, LLC, Case Nos. B280446/B282412 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 13, 2018) (unpublished) involved a case where an HOA

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Lemon Law Fee Award Which Was A 78% Reduction From Request Reversed And Remanded Because Post-998 Offer Fees Should Have Been Considered And Appellate Court Unclear Whether Proper Lodestar Analysis Conducted By Lower Court

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Size Of The Reduction Obviously Bothered Appellate Court, Although Its Statements On Level Of Detail Of State Court Fee Award Seems To Point Toward Adoption Of More Detailed Federal Court Analysis.             McCullough v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. D073330 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 9, 2018) (unpublished) is an interesting “lemon law” case where

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Citizens Group Vindicating Pomona’s Proposition L Ban On Outdoor Advertising Billboards Properly Awarded CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

However, Only $75,200.40 Lodestar Out Of Requested $569,700 Lodestar/Three Times Multiplier Actually Awarded.             In Citizens For Amending Proposition L v. City of Pomona, Case No. B283740 (2d Dist., Div 4 Nov. 7, 2018) (published), the appellate court considered an award to a plaintiff public citizen’s group of $75,200.40 under CCP § 1021.5. The City

Costs: $4,200 In Deposition Costs For Percipient “Higher Up” Witnesses No Abuse Of Discretion For Plaintiff Winning $587,000 In Damages After Bench Trial

Cases: Costs

Whether Costs Are Reasonable And Necessary Happen To Be Discretionary Calls Entrusted To The Trial Judge.             Deposition related costs are allowable, CCP § 1033.5(a)(3)(A), but—as with all costs—must be reasonably necessary to the underlying litigation in the case, Bender v. County of Los Angeles, 217 Cal.App.4th 968, 989-990 (2013). In Xeo International, Ltd. v.

Undertaking: Trial Judge Has Discretion To Order Discretionary Undertaking For Fees/Costs-Only Segment Of Judgment Under CCP § 917.9

Cases: Undertaking

Trial Judge Does Have Jurisdiction Under Section 917.9, Such That $1.5 Million Undertaking Ruling Was Not Beyond His Power.             Quiles v. Parent, Jr., Case No. G054907 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 2, 2018) (unpublished), also authored by Justice Fybel, is somewhat of a companion to our November 4, 2018 post on the related published

Scroll to Top