Author name: Marc Alexander

Eminent Domain:  Trial Court Correctly Awarded Litigation Expenses To Condemnee Where Condemnor’s Final Offer Was Only 54 Percent Of Verdict In Favor Of Condemnee For Taken Property

Cases: Eminent Domain

CCP § 1250.410 Allows Discretionary Fee Awards Where Trial Court Finds Final Offer Of Compensation Unreasonable And Property Owner’s Final Demand Reasonable.             Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410 allows trial courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (which also include reasonable expert witness and appraiser fees), as litigation expenses, to the property owner […]

Family Law:  Failure To Award Attorney’s Fees For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Determination Under Family Code Section 1101(g) Required Remand

Cases: Family Law

Wife Had Been Found To Violate Family Law Restraining Order By Selling Sale Of Assets After Separatio             In Marriage of Bracken and Gibson, Case No. A145337 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 7, 2017) (unpublished), wife was found to violate the family law restraining order which occurs when a dissolution petition is served by selling

Consumer Statutes/Costs:  2/2 DCA In Unpublished Decision Has Great Review Of Routine Costs Rules

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs

Appellate Court Also Has Specific Discussion On Reasonable Photocopy Expenses, PowerPoint Technician Costs, And Court Reporter Fee Charges             We have to say that the 2/2 DCA’s unpublished decision in Haroun v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. B272279 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 5, 2017) (unpublished) has a great discussion of general routine

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees:  Recent Article By Daniel K. Wiig Provides Clues On In-House Counsel Ability To Recoup Fee Recovery In Appropriate Cases

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Keeping Good Records Is A Must.             It is firmly established in California that in-house counsel can collect fees in appropriate fee-shifting contexts as long as they can establish that their fees are not unnecessarily duplicative in nature for services provided by other attorneys on the matter.  (See, e.g., Mix v. Tumanjan Development Corp., 102

Civil Rights:  Plaintiff Losing Statute Of Limitations Argument On FEHA Claim Properly Not Assessed With Adverse Fee Award

Cases: Civil Rights

Plaintiff Did Not Attempt To Replead Certain Claims In Amended Complaint And Defense Failure On CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Motion May Have Salted Away The Result.             “Pocketbook”, a concern in many civil rights fee-shifting cases, may be helped by subsequent efforts of a civil rights plaintiff and unsuccessful sanctions efforts by the defense.  Figueroa-Manjung

SLAPP:  Defendant’s Request For Fee Enhancement On Appeal Did Not Succeed

Cases: SLAPP

Defendant SLAPP Winner Awarded Full Amount Of Request, Waiving Supplemental Request Based On Actions Below.             In Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC v. Kasparian, Case No. B260613 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 31, 2017) (unpublished), a defendant successfully won a SLAPP action and was awarded $4,027.50 in fees, the exact amount requested.  However, even

Equity/Judgment Enforcement/Liens For Attorney Fees:  Assignment Of Judgment To Attorney Subject To Offsets As A Matter of Equity

Cases: Equity, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees

Result No Different Even If Classic Attorney’s Fees Lien Involved.             Although the facts are too convoluted to discuss in detail, Lalanne v. Armanino, Case No. A147227 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 31, 2017) (unpublished) involved a situation where an attorney obtained an assignment of judgment which was held subject to claimed offsets in the

Insurance:  4/1 DCA Holds That Fee Agreement During Trial Determines What Brandt Fees Can Be Awarded To Prevailing Insured Party

Cases: Insurance

Posttrial Manipulation Of Fee Agreement Not Allowed, As We Understand The Opinion.             For insurance practitioners, Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., Case No. D070478 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 30, 2017) (published) is a significant decision addressing what fee arrangement governs an award of attorney’s fees as damages under Brandt v. Superior

Probate:  Probate Court’s Apportionment Of Ordinary Probate Attorney’s Fees Under Probate Code Section 10814 Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Probate

Lower Court Did Not Err In Failing To Set An Evidentiary Hearing, Because He Considered Relevant Documents In The File As Far As Fee Apportionment.             Two Probate Code sections figures prominently in the resolution of the next case, Estate of Webb, Case No. A146787 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 29, 2017) (unpublished), which involved

Scroll to Top