Author name: Marc Alexander

Discovery/Sanctions: Plaintiff In Pro Per Attorney Properly Imposed With Discovery Sanctions Of $5,510 (Inclusive Of Attorney’s Fees) Under CCP § 2030.300(d)

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Appellate Court Rejects In Pro Per’s Due Process Argument And Challenge To Temporary Judge’s Initial Assignment To Motion Matter.             DeWitt v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. A151545 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 22, 2018) (unpublished) is a situation where an in pro per attorney, representing himself as plaintiff, sued several defendants in a […]

Sanctions: Moofly Productions Opinion Certified For Publication

Cases: Sanctions

Trial Court Must Provide 21-Day Safe Harbor Warning Before Imposing Sanctions For Improper Reconsideration.             On June 1, 2018, we posted on Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila, Case No. B282084 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 1, 2018), unpublished at the time. It held that a trial court must follow CCP § 128.7 21-day safe harbor

Intellectual Property: Ninth Circuit Affirms $314,669.75 Fee Award And $3,825.15 Cost Award In Favor Of Successful Defendants In Copyright Infringement Case

Cases: Intellectual Property

Case Involved Allegations That Defendants Copied Screenplay From Plaintiff In Connection With The Film “Walk Of Shame.”             Shame On You Productions, Inc. (SOYP) v. Banks, No. 16-55024 (9th Cir. June 21, 2018) (published) involved awards of $314,669.75 in attorney’s fees and of $3,825.15 in costs to defendants under the federal copyright fee-shifting statute (17

Allocation/Civil Rights/Costs/Reasonableness Of Fees: $158,880.50 Fee Award To Unruh Act Plntf Remanded For Review To Exclude Fees For A Co-Defendant’s Work, Limited Success In Light Of injunctive Modification, And Elimination Of Clerical Work Billing

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Costs Award Affirmed, But Fee Award Remanded For A Further Re-Do.              In Hernandez v. Starbucks Coffee Co., Case Nos. H042848/H043393 (6th Dist. June 20, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff successfully sued Starbucks for Unruh Act accessibility barrier discrimination at a San Jose store. Plaintiff was awarded statutory damages of $4,000 (although not winning all accessibility claims)

Family Code: $114,522.50 In Section 270 Sanctions Against Husband In Contentious Dissolution Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

Attorneys Did Seek Sanctions On Behalf Of Wife And Failure To Include Income/Expense Declaration On Appeal Failed To Support Husband’s Financial Burden Argument.             In Marriage of Sokol & Avidor, Case No. B280783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 20, 2018) (unpublished), husband was ordered to pay a total of $114,522.50 in Family Code section 270

Costs: Corporate Directors/Officers Testifying For Defendant Corporation, If Not Named Personally In A Lawsuit, Can Obtain Witness Fees From Nonprevailing Parties For 30(b)(6) Or Other Depositions

Cases: Costs

S.D. Cal. Local Rule So Allowed.             In Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc., No. 16-56089 (9th Cir. June 20, 2018) (published), defendant won summary judgment in a case where plaintiff photographers alleged CoreLogic removed copyright management information from photographs and distributed them in such a state in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)(1)-(3). CoreLogic filed a

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Nonprofit Properly Granted $76,930 In Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 1021.5 Based Upon Catalyst Theory In Proposition 65 Lawsuit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

1/3 DCA Has Nice Discussion Of Fee Entitlement Under Catalyst Theory.            Center for Environmental Health v. Nutraceutical Corp., Case No. A148208 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2018) (unpublished) is must reading for litigants and attorneys on the ambit and limitations of the catalyst theory which will give rise to attorney’s fees entitlement under California’s

Discovery, Family Law, Sanctions: $5,500 Discovery Sanctions Award Against Ex-Client Attorney Reversed Where Attorney Not Given Notice She Was A “Sanctions Target”

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Due Process Violation Was Reason For Reversal.              In Marriage of Mehta & Grover, Case No. A146919 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 19, 2018) (unpublished), a $5,500 discovery sanction against an ex-attorney for wife was reversed on due process grounds. What happened was that before the discovery sanctions motion was decided, attorney was relieved as

Appealability, Family Law: Litigant’s Failures To Specify Fee Order As Subject Of Notice Of Appeal And As Appeal Subject In Civil Information Statement Were Fatal In Nature

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

Although Notices Of Appeal Are Construed Liberally, The Order Under Appeal Still Must Be Specified With Some Precision.             Marriage of Schoenfeld, Case No. B281835 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 18, 2018) (unpublished) is a reminder to appellants that some precision must be made in both the notice of appeal and the appellate civil information

Estoppel, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court’s Conclusion That It Lacked Jurisdiction To Entertain Motion To Enforce Settlement Means That Neither Side Could Be Prevailing Party

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Motion Was Not On The Contract, Opposing Side Was Not Estopped From Denying Fee Exposure, And Prevailing Party Determination Was Premature In Nature.             The Fourth District, Division 1, in Howeth v. Coffelt, Case No. D072543 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2018) (unpublished) (Howeth II), had to deal with one side’s appeal of an

Scroll to Top