Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General:  Plaintiffs Invalidating Construction Based On Invalidity Of Six Of Eight Variances Entitled To CCP § 1021.5  Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$974,137.50 Fee Award Affirmed By 2/2 DCA.             La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (Target Corp.), Case No. B282137 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2018) (partially published) involved a situation where two public interest nonprofit plaintiffs challenged L.A.’s granting of eight variances so that a Target big box […]

Prevailing Party/Section 1717:  Litigants With No Unqualified Clear Win Or Loss Were Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Trial Court’s Discretionary Decision Of No Prevailing Party Affirmed On Appeal.             Under Civil Code section 1717, a trial judge has wide discretion to deny attorney’s fees where there are no clear, unqualified winning litigants such that the results are “mixed.”  Even where a party is ostensibly the prevailing party, the trial judge can still

Cases Under Review/Class Actions:  SCOTUS Grants Certiorari To Decide Whether Class Settlement Where $8.5 Million Was To Be Divided By Class Counsel And Cy Pres Recipients Was Fair In Nature

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Class Actions

Certiorari Granted On April 30, 2018.             In Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961 (U.S. Supreme Court), certiorari was sought by objectors to a class action settlement in a plaintiff class action against Google for alleged federal privacy violations over its search engine.  The settlement provided that nothing would go to class members, but $8.5 million

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation:  $66,103 Fee Award Against Losing Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Affirmed Based On Broad Fees Clause And Common Intersection of Complaint And Cross-Complaint Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Underlying Dispute Related To A Grading Of Dr. J’s 1972 Trading Card.             This next case illustrates an interesting application of attorney’s fees principles we have seen in many cases to a dispute over grading of a Dr. J trading card.  Let’s get to it.             In Knafo v. Collectors Universe, Inc., Case No. G055112

Cases Under Review:  California Supreme Court Has Four Fee/Sanctions Issues Pending For Consideration By Our Count

Cases: Cases Under Review

Arbitration 998 Costs Submission Issue, Appeal Jurisdiction Over Sanctions Issue, Arbitration Illegality/Conflicts Issues, And Prompt Payment Statute Issue Are The Ones We See As Pending.               Here is our list of California Supreme Court cases which have attorney’s fees/costs/sanctions issues involved in cases under review. 1.  Heimlich v. Shivji, S243029. (H042641; 12 Cal.App.5th 152;

Partition:  Appellate Court Reversed Lower Court’s Denial Of Request To Apportion Fees And Costs Based On Party’s Filing Only A Joinder Motion

Cases: Partition

1/3 DCA Believed Joinder Adequately Teed Up The Issue, Plus It Followed Lin Rather Than Finney On The Discretion Allowable When Making Partition Apportionment Adjudications.             Joinders can pose tricky issues for litigants and practitioners, with lower courts having very different “local, local” rules/protocols (sometimes not even articulated) about how joinders are to be presented

Intellectual Property:  Dropbox, Inc. Awarded Exceptional Attorney’s Fees When Counterclaimant’s Trade Infringement Claims Were Found Barred By Laches When Its Trademark Rights Were Found To Be Junior Because Dropbox, Inc. Had Senior Trademark Rights

Cases: Intellectual Property

Ninth Circuit Affirmed Fee Award Of More Than $1.7 Million, Plus $500,000 In Costs.             In Dropbox, Inc. v. Thru, Inc., Nos. 17-15078/17-15526 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018) (unpublished), defendant Thru had brought counterclaims of trademark infringement against Dropbox, but the claims were found to be barred by laches and Dropbox was found to have

In The News . . . . Special Master Appointed By N.D. Cal. Federal Judge Recommends Reducing $37.95 Million In Requested Fees By About 25%–Around $9 Million—In Anthem Data Breach Class Action

In The News

District Judge Appointed Special Master Because She Was Not Impressed That 53 Law Firms Were Involved.             Obviously, the Anthem data breach generated a lot of news as well as a class action filed in the Northern District of California federal court, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh.  A tentative settlement for $115 million

Special Fee Shifting Statute:  District Judge Can Award Fees And Costs Against Party If Its Decision To Remove Was Objectively Unreasonable

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

That Was So In This Case Because Fraudulent Joinder Argument Lacked Merit Under The Circumstances.             Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a district judge has discretion to award costs and attorney’s fees against a party if the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal, in the absence of unusual circumstances.             The

Scroll to Top