Author name: Marc Alexander

Landlord/Tenant and Section 1717:  Lack Of Written Contract Fees Clause Doomed Attorney’s Fees Request

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

Tenant’s Probability Theory Did Not Do Well At Either Trial Or Appellate Levels. Ida B. Wells Housing Project.  Meeting of the tenants.  Chicago, Illinois.  April 1942.  Jack Delano, photographer.  Library of Congress.             In Doll v. Ghaffari, Case No. B272384 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 25, 2017) (unpublished), tenant did prevail against landlord on certain […]

Civil Rights:  FEHA/Whistleblower Losing Plaintiff Properly Exposed To $94,017.50 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Civil Rights

Lack of Proof/Causation, And Some Crazy Assertions, Cemented Appellate Court’s Agreement With Trial Court’s Ruling.   Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace practices his favorite hobby, boomerang throwing.  July 13, 1939.  Library of Congress.             Baker v. Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Case No. B270973 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 25, 2017) (unpublished)

Costs:  Stockton Superior Court Issues Order On A Tax Costs Motion In Case Litigated By Co-Contributor Mike

Cases: Costs

Ruling On Voluntary Mediation Costs Show It Is Likely A Discretionary Issue For Trial Judge.             Co-contributor Mike litigated a case in Stockton County Superior Court before Judge Elizabeth Humphreys in which the defense prevailed, filing a memorandum of costs for certain expenses.  We now describe how she ruled on certain issues to demonstrate how

Private Attorney General:  Winning Litigant On Narrow Legal Issue Not Necessarily Applying To Large Class Of Individuals Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$63,945 Fee Request Rebuffed By Both Trial and Appellate Courts.             In Bonome v. City of Riverside, Case No. E065880 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 11, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff—a Riverside Police Officer—won a writ of mandate proceeding agreeing he was entitled to a good cause hearing to determine if he was honorably retired and entitled

Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Two Public Employees Properly Awarded Fees Under Government Code Section 996.4 And Private Attorney General Statute

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

However, Fee Multiplier Not Allowed Under Section 996.4 And Plaintiffs Did Well To Cross-Appeal Given That Costs To Prosecute 996.4 Recovery Not Allowable Under 996.4, But Was Allowable Under CCP § 1021.5.             This next case counsels that a protective cross-appeal can be a true salvation.  It was for the successful plaintiffs in Hosac v.

Private Attorney General:  Individual Vindicating His Own Interests In Rap Sheet Remediation Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Individual Did Not Demonstrate Any Systematic Police Department Violation.             In Barry v. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., Case No. B275359 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 10, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff prevailed narrowly on a writ of mandate requiring a remediation of his rap sheet under certain Penal Code provisions.  The trial judge refused to

SLAPP:  $96,420 SLAPP Fee Award Of Appellate Costs Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

Defense Smartly Stipulated To Reduce Fee Request By $10,000 During The Course Of Events.             Shalant v. Mackston, Case No. B271189 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 10, 2017) (unpublished) is a case where a trial judge granted the defense appellate fees of $96,420 for defending a SLAPP victory.  The decision is worth posting on because

In The News . . . . U.S. Chamber Institute For Legal Reform Finds California Ranked 47th Out Of 50 States In Terms Of Overall Fairness And Reasonableness Of Its Liability System

In The News

This Is The Third Time California Was So Ranked Since 2012.             According to an Editorial in the October 8, 2017 edition of The Orange County Register, California ranked 47th out of the 50 states in terms of overall fairness and reasonableness of its liability system based on a survey by the U.S. Chamber Institute

Scroll to Top