Author name: Marc Alexander

Appealability, Probate: $19,125 Attorney’s Fees And $537.94 Cost Orders Affirmed On Appeal For Beneficiaries’ Bad Faith Accounting Petition Directed Against Trustee

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Probate

Decision Reminds Us That Probate Court Orders, For Appealability Purposes, Are Determined Under the Probate Code.             Armstead v. De Macias, Case No. B284275 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 16, 2018) (unpublished) involved beneficiaries’ appeal of a probate court determination that $19,125 in attorney’s fees and $537.94 in costs should be awarded to trustee for […]

Private Attorney General: $1.2 Million Fee Recovery Under CCP § 1021.5 Goes POOF! When Court Of Appeal Determines That Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Was Not Catalyst For Defense Withdrawal From Overall Project

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

Rather, A Non-Party’s Withdrawal Motivated The Project’s Demise, Not Plaintiff’s CEQA Action.             We many times have posted on the fact that there are very distinct elements to be satisfied under California’s private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5, including other requirements where a “catalyst theory” is being pursued. The next case, AG Land Trust

Prevailing Party, Probate, Section 1717: 1/1 DCA Affirms “No Prevailing Party” Determination In Hotly Contested Probate Promissory Note Dispute Between Two Siblings

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717

Although Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction Over The Dispute In California, Fee Denials On Dueling Motions Was Justified Because Siblings Had To Await Determination In Texas Action.             In Savage v. Savage, Case No. A150984 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 15, 2018) (unpublished) [parenthetically, maybe a good case name for court disputes – no?], two siblings

Class Action: Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeal Dismisses Challenge By Three Employee, Non-Equity Lawyers To Fee Allocations Made In Long-Time Class Action Case

Cases: Class Actions

They Lacked Standing, Federal Court Of Appeals Rules.             In Roselle, et al. v. Berger & Montague, P.C., Case No. 17-1328 (10th Cir. Oct. 11, 2018) (nonprecedential), the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal by three attorney-employees of the now-defunct law firm of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley (WSBC) seeking personal compensation for work in a

Costs: Ship Vessel Owner’s Premiums For An Undertaking To Release Ship Under Custody Not Recoverable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 Or Other Statutory Authority

Cases: Costs

W.D. Wash. Local Rule To The Contrary Required Reversal Of Premium Costs To Prevailing Ship Vessel Owner.             Bunker Holdings Ltd. v. Yang Ming Liberia Corp., No. 16-355539 (9th Cir. Oct. 11, 2018) (published) was a situation where a prevailing ship vessel owner in an admiralty/maritime case was awarded costs, under a W.D. Wash. Local

Section 1717: Attorney’s Fees Award Under Asset Purchase Agreement Fees Clause Reversed As To Certain Losing Non-shareholder Plaintiffs Because They Could Not Sue Derivatively

Cases: Section 1717

Lack Of Derivative Standing Required Reversal Of Fee Award Obtained By Some Defendants Against Losing Non-shareholder Plaintiffs.             In Jarrett v. Diversis Management LLC, Case Nos. B277855/B279242 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 10, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs filed a derivative suit against a number of defendants, losing on a summary judgment motion which was affirmed on

In The News: Recent Report By Clio Reports Survey Of Solo Practitioners To Mid-Market Firms Show That Attorneys Only Bill About 30% Percent Out Of A Billable Work Day

In The News

NALFA and LAW360 Dub The Results As Surprising.             Clio, a Canadian company that provides cloud-based practice management for firms, has presented a recent Legal Trends Report released Thursday last week with some very interesting findings, which some websites (NALFA and Law36) find to be surprising—as do we.             Based on a survey of 70,000

Costs: Trial Judge’s Categorical Rejection Of Taxing Deposition and Trial/Other Travel Costs By Texas Counsel In California Case Required Reversal And A Restudy

Cases: Costs

Reimbursement Of Certain Expenses For Out-Of-State Counsel Can Be Entertained If Reasonably Necessary To The Litigation.             Legendary Investors Group No. 1 f. Niemann, Case Nos. B281915 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 9, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation in which the trial judge denied out-of-state (Texas) counsel’s costs for travel to deposition and

Appealability, Sanctions: Later Order Vacating Default Judgment Was Appealable But Stayed Where Prior Appealed Order Had Required $27,968.75 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs To Vacate Default Judgment

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

Result Was Defendant Had 25 Days After Remittitur To Pay Fee/Costs Vacate Award, With Dissenting Justice Believing That The Fees/Costs Award Should Be Reduced Down By Another $17,250.             This next case, F&S Investment Properties v. Nguyen-Stevenson, Case Nos. B281031/B281973 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 9, 2018) (unpublished), is a 2-1 decision regarding stay appealability

Section 998, Settlement: Vagaries In Acceptance By Offeree Cannot Be Adjudication Through Motion To Enforce A Settlement Under CCP § 664.6 And CCP § 998 Before Entering Judgment

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Settlement

Entry Of Judgment Based On 998 Offer Is A Ministerial Act That Cannot Involve Adjudication Of Dispute Over 998 Acceptance—Presumably An Independent Action Was The Remedy.             In Coleman v. Sagar, Case No. B283005 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 9, 2018) (unpublished), there was a brouhaha over whether defendant properly accepted a CCP § 998

Scroll to Top