Author name: Marc Alexander

In The News:  Banning Ranch Conservancy Reaches Settlement With Newport Beach Developer, Garnering $1.25 Million In Attorney’s Fees For CEQA Victory

In The News

Dispute Related To Long-Standing CEQA Dispute Resulting In Favorable California Supreme Court Decision To Conservancy.             We received an email from John McClendon, a principal with Irvine’s Leibold McClendon & Mann, who was lead counsel in environmental group Banning Ranch Conservancy’s CEQA dispute with the City of Newport Beach and Newport Banning Ranch LLC over […]

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees:  Wyoming Supreme Court Finds Nothing Wrong With 15 Minute Billing Increments Or Inter-Office Conferences On Cases Under The Right Circumstances

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Although 15 Minute Billing Increments Are Not Per Se Offensive, Many Cases, Guidelines, And Commentary Suggest (Or, In Some Cases Require) 6 Minute Billing Increments.             We thank Keith Turner of Santa Monica, who argued and obtained a precedential HOA fee-shifting decision in his client homeowner’s favor, for bringing to our attention the next decision

Private Attorney General:  Plaintiffs Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because They Were Not A Catalyst And Did Not Attempt To Settle The Matter At A Prelitigation Stage

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Could Not Surmount The Deferential Abuse Of Discretion Standard.             In Belemjian v. Becerra, Case No. F073507 (5th Dist. Mar. 29, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs/appellants filed an action challenging the regulatory process undertaken by the Attorney General, DOJ, and others to implement a firearm safety certificate program, although emergency regulations were ultimately adopted so as

Intervenors:  On Remand, CPUC Erred In Awarding All Requested Fees To Intervenors Without Linking To Specific Orders Or Decisions By The CPUC For Fee Entitlement Purposes

Cases: Intervenors

Another Remand To Get It Right.             Way back in April 21, 2016, we posted on New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Public Utilities Com., 246 Cal.App.4th 784 (2016), where the 1/4 DCA remanded a fee award to intervenors under Public Utility Code section 1803 for intervenors making “a substantial contribution of the adoption, in

SLAPP:  “Of Counsel” To Successful SLAPP Attorney Defendants Was Barred From Seeking SLAPP Fee Recovery For Clients Under Trope Case

Cases: SLAPP

4/1 DCA Accepted Rationale In Sands Decision.             Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 277 (1995), our Leading Case No. 12, bars an attorney’s ability to recover for self-representation under Civil Code section 1717, which has also been extended to the SLAPP context.  (See, e.g., Ellis Law Group v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC,

Section 1717:  Litigant’s Loss On One Fraud Claim, But Win On Contractual And Indemnity Claims, Justified $98,330.65 Fees Award Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717

No Reduction For Loss On Fraud Claim Mandatory Under Section 1717.             In XTC Investments v. Stingl, Case No. B279577 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 28, 2018) (unpublished), respondents filed cross-claims for breach of contract, indemnity, and fraud against appellants, with respondents winning on their cross-claims except for the fraud claim to the extent of

Appealability/Discovery/Sanctions:  Separate Discovery Sanctions Cannot Be Aggregated For Purposes Of Meeting $5,000 Appealability Threshold

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Two Separate Sanctions Below $5,000 Cannot Be Aggregated For Appealability Purposes.             In Mitchell Anthony Productions, LLC v. Baron, Case No. B282974 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 28, 2018) (unpublished), the trial judge awarded $4,860 in discovery sanctions on separate motions to compel further discovery responses to the interrogatories and requests

Arbitration/Costs:  Subsequently Confirmed Judgment Involving Costs Award Separate From Prior Merits Judgment Did Not Violate “One Final Judgment” Rule  

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Costs

  Appellate Court Found Incremental Award Process Appropriate Under The Circumstances.             In EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., Case No. B281594 (2d Dist., Divl 2 Mar. 28, 2018) (published), respondent in an arbitration obtained an arbitration award requiring appellant to defend respondent in a lawsuit brought by appellant’s bus drivers, which

Section 998:  998 Offer With Language “Exclusive Of Reasonable Costs And Attorney Fees, If Any” Not Found Ambiguous And Was Enforceable According To 2/1 DCA

Cases: Section 998

Result Was Preoffer Fees/Costs To Plaintiff And Postoffer Fees/Costs To The Defense.             In a right of publicity case brought by plaintiff professional model under Civil Code section 3344(a) (which has a companion fee-shifting statutory provision) against defendant restaurant/bar, plaintiff was awarded $4,483.30 “exclusive of any costs or attorney’s fees that may be set by

Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Doctor Who Successfully Obtained Grant Of Application Relating To An Office Being A Medi-Cal “Established Place Of Business” Improperly Denied Fee Recovery Under CCP § 1028.5

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Result Was A Reversal And Grant Of $7,500 In Maximum Allowable Fees Under § 1028.5.             CCP § 1028.5 is one of those special California fee-shifting statutes, which in this instance provides that a small business or licensee prevailing in an action against a statute regulatory agency can recover a maximum attorney’s fees award of

Scroll to Top