Author name: Marc Alexander

Judgment Enforcement:  Receipt Of Check And Erroneous Execution of Judgment Acknowledgment Meant There Was No Valid Satisfaction of Judgment

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Case Just As Importantly Illustrates Importance Of Fees/Costs Exposure—Plaintiff Won Only $1,002, But Was Awarded $121,125 In Fees And $7,842.26 In Costs Under Davis-Stirling Act.               Rivera v. 4 Streets Co-Op of Rte. 2, Inc., Case No. B281866 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 26, 2018) (unpublished) has some post-judgment enforcement lessons, but just as equally illustrates […]

Arbitration/Reasonableness Of Fees:  Attorney Won Arbitration Award Against Former Client For $78,154.49 In Unpaid Fees, Plus $126,406.25 In Fees And $36,681.57 In Costs For Arbitration Success, Plus $133,362.50 For Having To File Motion To Compel Arbitr

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Case Demonstrates How Fees/Costs Easily Can Outstrip Base Compensatory Award.             Attorney had to sue a former client for unpaid bills, invoking an arbitration clause in the initial retainer agreement.  One of the key issues was whether that initial retainer agreement was orally modified by the parties’ conduct to encompass later matters, with the proof

Retention Agreements:  Riverside County Bar Association Fee Arbitrators Find Enforceable A Hybrid Retention Agreement Providing For A Contingency To Attorney If Successful, Plus A Feature That Attorney’s Fees And Costs Awarded For The Success Are Kept

Cases: Retainer Agreements

$304,570.00 Was Fee Award To Attorney, Plus $35,000 More For Post-Trial Work On A Quantum Meruit Basis.             We would like to thank Gregory M. Burke of CGA Ventures, Inc. for sharing with us the Findings and Award by the Riverside County Bar Association’s Fee Arbitration Program in a fee dispute with a former client.

Section 1717:  Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal Of Action While One Claim Remained Intact Precluded Award Of Attorney’s Fees Under Civil Code Section 1717(b)(2)

Cases: Section 1717

Fee Award Of $13,985.80 To Defense Reversed As A Matter Of Law.             Plaintiff contractor sued his contractor’s bond surety defendant for three claims after surety refused to issue him a new bond based on a prior payout to a homeowner for alleged faulty window installations.  The trial judge eventually sustained a demurrer on all

Homeowner Associations/POOF!:  2/4 DCA Reinstates Homeowner’s Breach Of Fiduciary/Quiet Title Claims And Allows Further Amendment Of Slander Of Title Claim, Which Causes Attorney’s Fees Award To HOA As Prevailing Party To Go POOF!

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: POOF!

$249,861.50 Fee Award Goes Away For Now.             In Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes, Case Nos. B278198/B279671 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 23, 2018) (unpublished), homeowner sued HOA for breach of fiduciary duty, slander of title, and quiet title arising from a tree trimming dispute between neighbors.  (Boy, oh boy,

Bankruptcy/Sanctions:  Contempt Sanctions Against Creditor For Knowingly Violating Discharge Injunction Could Not Stand Based On Creditor’s Subjective Good Faith Belief, Even If Unreasonable

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Sanctions

Ninth Circuit Clarified Some Reasoning In Zilog Decision.             In In re Taggart, Case No. 16-35402 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2018) (published), the Ninth Circuit clarified some prior reasoning in In re Zilog, 450 F.3d 996, 1009 n.14 (9th Cir. 2006) to reinforce that contempt sanctions cannot be assessed against a creditor for knowingly violating

Sanctions:  $34,000 In CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Affirmed Against Litigant Unsuccessfully Trying To Upset Earlier Adjudication Based Upon Extrinsic Fraud

Cases: Sanctions

Among Other Things, Damning Admissions In Debtor Exam Sealed The Deal.             In Quadri v. Alkayali, Case No. G054914 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 19, 2018) (unpublished), the 4/3 DCA—in a panel decision authored by Justice Bedsworth—affirmed around a $ 34,000 sanction against a litigant losing an “extrinsic fraud” challenge to a prior verdict.  Among

Class Action/Costs/Section 998:  CSU Student Class Representatives Properly Assessed With Some Mandatory Costs After Class Action Loss Under CCP § 998, But Denial Of Expert Witness Fees To Defense Was Proper Given The Differences In Damages Among Subcla

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

End Result Was Four Class Representatives Were Hit With Routine Costs Of $123,134.94.             Class action practitioners should read this next post on how CCP § 998 costs shifting can result in routine costs exposure to class representatives, especially where “pocketbook” financial evidence is not properly presented.             In Keller v. Bd. of Trustees, Cal.

Private Attorney General, Requests For Admissions, Section 998:  Former Employee Plaintiff Winning $50,000 In Damages Properly Denied Costs Of Proof Sanctions And Private Attorney General Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

Trial Judge Also Properly Awarded Costs To Defense Under CCP § 998 Offer.             One of the beauties of posting on unpublished decisions is to see the array of cross-over issues in fees/costs issues at the California state level.  Chamblee v. Inland Behavioral and Health Services, Inc., Case No. D073121 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr.

Scroll to Top