Author name: Marc Alexander

Allocation, Landlord-Tenant, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Alleged To Be Partner Of Landlord Properly Awarded Fees Of $45,930 Against Tenant, Minus A “Double Dip” Item

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

One Unilateral San Francisco Ordinance Fee-Shifting Provision Did Not Show That Interrelated Fees Spent On Compensable Claims Could Not Be Allowed.             Bienkowski v. Lam, Case No. A151579 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 9, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation where a tenant sued a defendant as the undisclosed partner of landlord, alleging that he was […]

Family Law: Bulk of Attorney’s Fees Rulings Contested By Ex-Wife Affirmed, Although One Award Denying Fees For Child Support Modification Was Reversed

Cases: Family Law

Large-Scale Dissolution Battle Was Involved, With Appellate Court Giving Great Explanation Of Abuse Of Discretion Standard Of Review—Likely a “Smell Test” At Best.             In Marriage of Vinhas and Krognes, Case No. A144387 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 9, 2018) (unpublished), a family law judge largely decided marital standard of living issues in favor of

Ethics, Settlement: Attorneys, Under Settlement Agreement Of Fee Dispute With Ex-Clients, Did Not Have To Reveal Potential Legal Malpractice Claims For Purposes Of Entering Into Valid Settlement Agreement Over Fees Dispute

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Settlement

Ex-Clients Were Not Entitled To Rescind Settlement Agreement For Purported Ethical Violations.             The First District, Division 1, in Property California SCJLW One Corp. v. Leamy, Case No. A152959 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 9, 2018) (published), had to confront whether ex-clients entering into a settlement agreement over a fee dispute with their former attorneys

Costs, Section 998: Inability To Pay Does Not Prevent An Award Of Routine CCP § 1032 Costs, While Trial Judge’s Wholesale Denial Of Costs Required Evaluation Of Whether “Walkaway” CCP § 998 Offer Was In Good Faith

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

On Remand, Financial Condition Of Rejecting Offeree Can Be Considered In The Costs-Shifting Proceeding.             LAOSD Asbestos Cases (Alfaro v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.), Case No. B281022 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 8, 2018) (published) involved the results of a costs-shifting proceeding in a case where a plaintiff lost her tort case in which she alleged developing

Probate Two-Fer: $237,000 In Fees Against One Objecting Sibling Stood After Merits Challenges Rebuffed And Improperly Objecting Beneficiary In Second Decision Reviewed Below Socked With $14,115.39 In Fees Under Probate Code Section 17211

Cases: Probate

Blech v. Blech, Case No. B268326 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 6, 2018) (Partially Published; Fee Discussion Unpublished).             In this one involving a trust dispute between one objecting sibling against his other three siblings, the appellate court rejected objector’s merits challenges on appeal, which also affirmed the fee awards of $237.000 in aggregate amount

Civil Rights: Plaintiff Seeking Injunctive Relief Under California’s Disabled Person Act Improperly Assessed With $28,008 In Attorney’s Fees After Defendant Modified A Grocery Store Parking Lot To Create An Accessible Path For Disabled Persons

Cases: Civil Rights

Defense Fee Recovery Reversed, But No Fees To Plaintiff Because She Did Not Seek Fees Below.             This one is somewhat of an object lesson because the 2/4 DCA not only reversed fee recovery against a disabled person dismissing an action for injunctive relief under the Disabled Person Act (DPA), but would have found that

Fee Clause Interpretation: 4/3 DCA Reverses $9,000 Fee Recovery Against Estate’s Personal Representative/General Partner Who Was Not A Party To The Agreement With Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Was Also Broad In Scope, But Nonsignatory Individuals Were Not Party To The Underlying Agreement.             In Mayhew Plaza Woodland Hills II, LLC v. Kelsey, Case No. G054435 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 6, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff dismissed an individual defendant in his capacity as representative of an estate in an action alleging

Class Action: Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals Determines, Unless Settlement Agreement Has A Bar, Settlement Agreement Should Not Be Read To Bar Objectors From Requesting Fees For Adding Value To Settlement Based On Equitable And Common Fund Principles

Cases: Class Actions

Federal Appeals Court Ordered An End To The Litigation, With Class Counsel To Pay Objector’s Fees Adding Value To Class Settlement.             We like the near conclusion to the next federal circuit court case we post on: “Despite our remand [ordering a class objector’s fees paid from class counsel fee recovery], our message is clear:

Section 998: Unapportioned 998 Offer To Multiple Defendants Invalid

Cases: Section 998

Result Was That Expert Witness Costs Award Of $60,023.90 Went POOF!             In Miller v. Fleming, Case No. A150554 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 3, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff sued two defendants mainly for breach of fiduciary duty based on an oral partnership joint venture opportunity. Plaintiff eventually won $3.7 million in compensatory damages from a

Employment: Penal Code Section 496(c) Does Not Allow Plaintiff Employee To Recover Treble Damages Or Attorney’s Fees On The Theory That Lost Compensation Is A “Theft” Of “Property”

Cases: Employment

Labor Is Not Property Under Section 496(c) From Statutory Or Policy Perspectives.             In Lacagnina v. Comprehend Systems, Inc., Case No. A147559 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 3, 2018) (partially published; Penal Code section 496 and fee discussion published), plaintiff, a former vice president of business development, sued defendant former employer and defendant’s co-founders on

Scroll to Top