Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General:  Respondents Specially Appearing In Securities Fraud Action Brought By Commissioner Of Department Of Business Oversight Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$149,500 Was The Amount Of The Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal.             Although not formally intervening in a securities fraud action brought by the Commissioner of the Department of Business Oversight (DBO) against a real estate investment company and its promoters, respondents on appeal made a special appearance and obtained relief by which their individual […]

Family Law:  $30,000 271 Sanctions Against Ex-Husband Not Reviewable For Lack Of Adequate Record Including Family Hearings Which Led To The Sanctions Order

Cases: Family Law

Also, Disentitlement Doctrine Might Prevent Further Appeals By Ex-Husband.             Ex-husband in Marriage of Volovik & Parchin, Case No. B280980 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 18, 2018) (unpublished) was disgruntled when the lower court imposed a Family Code section 271 sanction award of $30,000 against him, although the result could have been worse given the

Deadlines/Employment:  Successful Plaintiff Employee Class Timely Filed Fee Motion

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Employment

Fee Award Remanded For A Restudy After Some Damage Components Reversed Or Remanded For Recalculation.             Most fee requests in California are done by noticed motion and follow California Rules of Court deadlines in most instances, which generally track the time within which to appeal the underlying judgment or appealable order.   Under CRC 3.1702(b)(1) and

Section 1717:  Plaintiff Attempting To Dismiss Case With Prejudice Before Submission Of Written Trial Closing Arguments Was Not Subject To Civil Code Section 1717 Contractual Fee Exposure

Cases: Section 1717

Dismissal With Prejudice Was Key, With Section 1717 Containing No Pre-Merits, Pre-Dispositive Adjudication Limitations.             Shapira v. Lifetech Resources, Case No. B283445 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 17, 2018) (published) addresses the vexing question of when does a dismissal cut off attorney’s fees exposure under Civil Code section 1717 where there has been no prior

Private Attorney General:  Successful School District Did Not Garner CCP § 1021.5 Attorney’s Fees And Costs Where Its Partial Win Did Not Prevent Competing School District From Obtaining Charter By Sued Respondent

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Successful Result Only Made Sure Proper Findings Made, Not Vindicating Important Public Right Or Impacting Others Beyond Successful Party’s Constituents.             In Newhall School Dist. v. Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School Dist., Case No. B267856 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 16, 2018) (unpublished), Newhall obtained a partial grant of its writ petition vacating Acton-Agua’s approval of

Sanctions:  Third District Decides That An Asserted Nonfrivolous Claim Cannot Be Found To Be Brought For An Improper Purpose Under CCP § 128.7

Cases: Sanctions

Plaintiffs Advanced A Plausible Interpretation Of A Phrase In Prior Settlement Stipulation Such That Sanctions Were Not Warranted.             In Ponce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 21 Cal.App.5th 253, Case No. C080680 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2018) (published), a trial judge sanctioned plaintiffs who brought lender liability claims in a residential property dispute with terminating sanctions

Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Statute:  L.A. Times Improperly Denied Private Attorney General Fees Against Officers/Police Officer Union And Properly Granted Fees Under Public Record Act As Against City Of Pasadena

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

Trial Court’s Award Of $45,472 To Times Under PRA Affirmed On Appeal, With Times Now Getting To Seek Reasonable Fees Against Officers/Police Union Under CCP § 1021.5.             Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, Case No. B275566 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 12, 2018) (published) was a situation where the L.A. Times brought

Homeowner Association:  Trial Court Correctly Denied Plaintiff’s Negligence-Based Fee Recovery Against HOA Based On Gravamen Of The Claim—Negligence, Not CC&R Enforcement

Cases: Homeowner Associations

Plaintiff’s Fee Request Of $145,212.67 Rebuffed By Trial and Appellate Courts.             This next case should illustrate how both trial and appellate jurists try to get to the nub of a dispute—with the ultimate decision on the nature of the claim being very decisive on whether there is fee entitlement.             Martini v. Bel Azure

Tort Of Another:  Trial Stipulation Did Not Adequately Preserve Tort Of Another Fee Recovery Request When It Only Talked About A Noticed Motion

Cases: Tort of Another

Tort Of Another Is A Damages Phase Issue, Such That Any Renewal Was Too Prejudicial.             Beeson v. Lion Connecticut Holdings Inc., Case Nos. A144542/A147993 (4th Dist., Div. 1 mod. unpublished opinion Apr. 11, 2018; original unpublished opinion Mar. 14, 2018) dealt with a cross-appeal by a party cross-complainant challenging a lower court’s denial of

Scroll to Top