Author name: Marc Alexander

Costs, Discovery, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Multi-Million Dollar Costs, Discovery Violation Sanctions, And Fee Recoveries Reversed And Remanded Based On Reversals And Necessity To Revisit Fee Entitlement Bases

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

             Moonlight Fire.  2007.  Wikipedia.  Author:  kkmontandon.                  Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, Case Nos. C074879/C076008 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017) (fully published; first posted on Dec. 6, 2017 with costs/fee discussions not published) is a case arising from the 2007 […]

Costs, Discovery, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Multi-Million Dollar Costs, Discovery Violation Sanctions, And Fee Recoveries Reversed And Remanded Based On Reversals And Necessity To Revisit Fee Entitlement Bases

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

            Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, Case Nos. C074879/C076008 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017) (fully published; first posted on Dec. 6, 2017 with costs/fee discussions not published) is a case arising from the 2007 Moonlight Fires which burned 65,000 acres in Plumas County.  Plaintiffs, mainly governmental agencies or affiliates, sought to recover

Employment:  Plaintiff Legal Secretary Prevailing On Overtime Claims Awarded Fees Of $277,000 In Los Angeles County Superior Court

Cases: Employment

Compensatory Award Was About $121,000; Plaintiff Had Requested $830,000 In Fees.             As reported by Debra Cassens Weiss in a November 28, 2017 post on the ABA Journal, a former legal secretary Noemi Bernal—plaintiff in an overtime dispute with her former law firm—obtained a jury compensatory award against former employers (J.J. Little & Associates, Law

Prevailing Party/Section 1717:  Appellate Reversal And Remand Of Some Claims Also Required Reversal Of Fee Award

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Award Was Predicated On A Victory Over All Claims, But Fee Awards Have To Await A Final Resolution.             A reversal of a merits judgment usually means an ensuing fee award also falls for the time being.  This result occurs because a prevailing party determination under Civil Code section 1717 must await a final resolution

Civil Rights/Employment:  FEHA Individual Supervising Employee Defendant Still Must Meet Frivolousness Standard For Purposes Of Obtaining FEHA Fee Shifting Award

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

Employer Standard Also Applies To Supervising Employee Defendant.             In Lopez v. Routt, Case No. B269345 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 29, 2017) (published), the Second District, Division 3 DCA decided that a supervising employee FEHA defendant had to meet the same frivolousness standard as applicable to employer defendant with respect to recovering fees from

Appealability, Equity, Fee Clause Interpretation:  Four California Intermediate Appellate Courts Address Diverse Attorney’s Fees Issues

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Equity, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Galindo v. Polakoff, Case No. D071555 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 29, 2017) (Unpublished)—Equity/Offsets.             In this one, the Court of Appeal affirmed an offset determination by the trial judge where it did grant fees to one party prevailing but even after an offset conclusion was reached.  Must reading for practitioners facing offset issues under

Settlement:  Post-Judgment Enforcement Request For Fines, Plus Attorney’s Fees, Not Allowable Under Settlement Agreement/Consent Judgment

Cases: Settlement

Case Illustrates Care In Drafting Remedies Available Under a Consent Judgment Via Settlement.             Howeth v. Coffelt, Case No. D072136 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2017) (unpublished) is a case reminding practitioners to pay particular attention to the remedies for a consent judgment ending a dispute reached through a settlement agreement.             Here, a

Civil Rights/Multiplier:  2.0 Multiplier Fee Award In FEHA Case Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

Compensatory Award Was $1 Million, With $1,945,295 FEHA Award Affirmed On Appeal.             In Lopez v. City of Beverly Hills, Case No. B268451 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2017 unpublished; received for posting Dec. 1, 2017 unpublished), a FEHA plaintiff—after two years of litigation and a 10-day jury trial involving 24 witnesses–won to the

Private Attorney General:  UCL Violations Against Car Dealer Justified Section 1021.5 Recovery Of $24,278.18 In Fees And $ 3,922.50 In Favor Of Car Purchaser Obtaining Rescission Of Purchase And Damages

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Car Purchaser Requested Fees Of $80,927.25, But Fee Request Reduced For Work Vindicating Car Purchaser’s Personal Interests.             We found Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc., Case No. B268271 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 27, 2017) (partially published; fee discussion not published) to be interesting given how the trial judge fashioned a positive fee award

Section 998:  Plaintiff’s Unaccepted 998 Offer Resulted In $339,467 In Costs Against Defense

Cases: Section 998

Defendants’ Alleged Indigent Status And Insurer Excess Liability Factors Were Inconsequential, And Technical Argument On 998 Acceptance Line Formatting Rejected.             Although unpublished, Hackett v. Silva Trucking, Inc., Case No. C076745 (3d Dist. Nov. 22, 2017) (unpublished) is an interesting analysis of factors which were not properly considered when the defense rejected 998 offers in

Scroll to Top