Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General: Fifth District, In Unpublished Opinion, Has A Nice Discussion Of Future Speculative Financial Benefits Which Do Not Disqualify Litigants From Entitlement To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Under Whitley

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Fee Award Only In Favor Of One Litigant Had To Be Remanded To Award Fees To Two Closely-Aligned Litigants Given That The Lower Court Appeared To Apply Wrong Legal Standard.             This is must reading for public interest attorneys on both sides, because it has a fairly elaborate discussion of what type of speculative, future financial […]

Consumer Statutes, Special Fee Shifting Statute: “The Holder Rule” Governing Commercial Lenders Under Consumer Installment Sale Contract Could Not Be Saddled With Attorney’s Fees Exposure

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Lender Was Responsible For Routine Costs As The Non-Prevailing Party.                 In actuality, this is really a fee-shifting limitation and quasi-legislative limitation on consumer recovery post.             “The Holder Rule, 16 Code of Fed. Regs. § 433.2, was prominent in dictating the result in Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. C080535 (3d Dist.

Family Law: In Fletcher Jones, Jr. Dissolution, $5.8M Fee Award Of Requested $9.5M To Ex-Wife For CA Litigation Not Abuse Of Discretion, But Remanded To See If Ex-Wife Entitled To More Than $375K For NV Litigation Where She Failed To Invalidate Agrmnts.

Cases: Family Law

Remand Necessary In Nevada Litigation Because California Family Law Judge Improperly Took Judicial Notice Of Factual Finding By Nevada Court In Denying A Request For A Reimbursement Of Additional Fees.                 Admittedly, the Fletcher (Ted) Jones, Jr. dissolution case was going to be messy—after all, the couple lived a lavish lifestyle based on lucrative luxury

Private Atty General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: 2/1 DCA’s Reversal Of Settlement Agrmnt/Prop. “A” Ruling Meant 1 Nonprofit Plaintiff’s Fee Award Went POOF! And Fee Award Against Another Nonprofit Plaintiff Reversed/Remanded Under CC§815.7(d)

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reason For Civil Code Section 8157(d) Reversal Was That Winning Respondent Needed To Show That Nonprofit’s Action Was Frivolous, Unreasonable, And Groundless Under Christiansburg.              Proposition “A” Protective Assn. v. Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Case Nos. B272381/B281923 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 17, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where conservation authority sued an oil company

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717, Section 998: Overall Prevailing Party Not Entitled To Atty’s Fees On Contractual Claim Dismissed During Closing Argument, On Noncontractual Claims Under Narrow Fees Clause, Nor § 998 As Gen. Litigation Expenses

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Result Was Affirmance Of $38,000 Fees Award On One Of Three Cases, But Affirming The Denial Of The Remaining $165,000 Total Request Based On Topical Analysis Above.             Contreras v. Silla America, Inc., Case No. B283118 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 17, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where a trial judge decided that an overall

In The News . . . College Athletes’ $42.3M Fee/Costs Award Affirmed In NCAA Class Action; Manhattan S.C. Slashes Fee Request 62% w/Poignant Comments On Exorbitant Fee Requests; S.D.N.Y. Dist. Judge Releases Info On Patent Litigators’ Hourly Rates

In The News

We Thank NALFA For Providing Posts Which We Summarize.             We thank the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis (NALFA) for posting on three matters, which we summarize in our own way, which will be of interest to our readers.   College Athletes’ Fees/Costs Award in O’Bannon Class Action Against NCAA.             In this case,

Deeds Of Trust/Fee Clause Interpretation: Deed Of Trust Fees Clause Was Broadly Worded So As To Entitle Lender To Attorney’s Fees Award Against Borrower

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

$45,263.33 Was The Award After A Dismissal Based On Plaintiff Not Appearing At Trial.             In Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership, L.P., Case No. B268541 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 10, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff failed to appear at a scheduled trial such that his case against a lender was dismissed, a determination affirmed on appeal.

In The News . . . . Edward Stolz, Owner Of Several California FM Radio Stations, Ordered To Pay More Than $1.5 Million In Damages/Attorney’s Fees/Costs To ASCAP For Copyright Failures To Pay Licensing Fees

In The News

$900,000 In Attorney’s Fees/Costs And $330,000 In Statutory Damages Awarded In California When Base Dispute Was Over Around $300,000 In Licensing Fees.             This post shows that it pays to pay one’s owed licensing fees when there is a fee-shifting section under a statute (in this case, the Copyright Act) or under a licensing agreement

Prevailing Party: Defendants Fighting Back Plaintiff’s Service Lien Claim, But Only Garnering $5,787.81 Out Of Sought-After Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In A Cross-Complaint, Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Request

Cases: Prevailing Party

Trial and Appellate Courts Found Neither Side Was A Prevailing Party, With Defense Request For $147,932.50 In Fees Denied.             Whenever a trial judge decides, in a post-trial fee hearing, that the result was a “tie” (or close thereto) as far as whether a fee claimant was a prevailing party in a lawsuit with mixed

Scroll to Top