Author name: Marc Alexander

Fees As Damages: 1/2 DCA Unpublished Decision Reminds Us That Litigation Expenses Alone Can Be Awarded As Special Damages In Slander Of Title Actions

Cases: Fees as Damages

In The Unpublished Case, $784,285.78 In Fees Were Awarded As Damages By The Lower Court, A Determination Affirmed On Appeal.             In Burlingame Investment Corp. v. Kwai, Case No. A144944 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 18, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs won a slander of title cause of action against defendants, with the trial judge awarding defendants […]

Section 1717: Section 1717 Fee Award Plaintiff Reversed For Including Fees For Nonsignatory Work In Tort Case, But Remand May Be Nonproductive

Cases: Section 1717

Only Fees Attributable To Nonsignatory’s Defense, To The Extent Severable From Defense Work On Behalf Of Prevailing Signatory, Are To Be Omitted In Second Fee Proceeding.           The 4/3 DCA’s opinion in Zaffarkhan v. Domesek, Case No. G054997 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 18, 2018) (unpublished), as even the appellate court observed in a footnote, is

Section 998, Trade Secrets: 4/3 DCA Reverses Trial Judge’s Significant Taxing Of Costs-Shifting Under Rejected CCP § 998 Offer And Reverses Denial Of Fees Under Penal Code Section 502 Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Trade Secrets

Remand Was Order, But A Potential $575,000 To $994,000 In Expert And Attorney’s Fees Must Be Considered In “Re Do.”             Prince v. Invensure Ins. Brokers, Inc., Case Nos. G051996 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 18, 2018) (partially published; section 998 discussion published, with remaining fee discussion unpublished) is an insurance business merger

In The News . . . . Michigan State University’s Legal Bills In Larry Nassar Scandal Now Top More Than $11.3 Million

In The News

Nine Law Firms Involved In Handling Matters Relating To The Incident, But Settlement Recently Reached.             Recent news articles report that Michigan State University’s legal costs relating to the Larry Nassar scandal—involving gymnasts—now top more $11.3 million, although this figure likely is higher because it did not capture bills for some months in 2018 which

Deadlines: Appellate Court Reverses Denial Of Fee Motion Based On Failure To Adhere To 180-Day Outside Deadline

Cases: Deadlines

Reason Was That Multiple Interlocutory Orders And Dismissal, And Absence Of Final Judgment, Made Deadline Unclear For Moving Parties.         What occurred in Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Assn. v. Maxwell-Jolly, Case No. B270462 (2d Dist. Div. 3 May 17, 2018) (unpublished) is that a trial judge denied plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees under the private attorney

Arbitration: Recent 2/1 DCA Unpublished Opinion Is A Stark Reminder To Raise Fees And Costs Issue To An Arbitrator Before A Final Award Is Issued

Cases: Arbitration

Otherwise, Fees/Costs Recovery Could Be Forfeited; Best Is To Ask For An Interim Award On Merits And Reserve Other Issues For Later Interim Award.           The next case really is a stark reminder to litigators to make sure an arbitrator reserves fees and costs issues for decision in a subsequent interim award after an interim award

Family Law: $20,000 Section 271 Sanctions Award And $5,000 Breach of Fiduciary Duty Sanctions Award Affirmed By 4/3 DCA Against Ex-Wife

Cases: Family Law

But No Appellate Fees Awarded To Ex-Husband.             In Marriage of Reed, Case No. G050666 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 15, 2018) (unpublished), ex-wife was assessed with $20,000 in sanctions under Family Code section 271 and another $5,000 in sanctions for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to disclose the existence of a community property

In The News: Citi Private Bank Law Group’s First Quarter 2018 Report Shows Billing Rates Are Up 4.8% In 1st Quarter 2018 For Larger U.S./Niche Firms

In The News

Demand And Revenue Is Also Up.             Citi Private Bank Law Firm Group's Q1 2018 Quarterly Flash Report, which provides an overview of current financial trends in the legal industry, based on data collected through our Quarterly Flash survey of 179 law firms (80 Am Law 100 firms, 47 Second Hundred firms and 52 niche/boutique

Construction: California Supreme Court Decides That Prompt Payment Statutes Relating To Direct Contractor-Subcontractor Retention Withholdings Can Only Relate To The Relevant Specific Payment Otherwise Due Rather Any Dispute Between The Parties

Cases: Construction

Construction-Related Performance Relating To Retention Amount, Third Party-Lien Disputes, Or More Than Agreed-Upon Payments To Subcontractor Are Allowable Grounds For Delayed Payment, With The Holding Having Implication On Statutory Penalties and Attorney’s Fees For Delayed Payment Of Retentions.             California, for both private and public projects, has enacted prompt payment statutes relating to owner/direct contractor

Scroll to Top