Author name: Marc Alexander

Unlicensed Contractors:  Defendant Victim Of No Contest Pleading Unlicensed Contractor Properly Awarded Civil Action Attorney’s Fees As Part Of Criminal Probationary Restitution Order

Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Penal Code Section 1202.4(f)(3)(H) Was Basis For Fees As Restitutio             Walker v. Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court (People), Case No. B208100 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 22, 2017) (published) is a case where a criminal defendant pled no contest to a misdemeanor cost of contracting without a contractor’s license, ordered […]

Civil Rights/Settlement:  Plaintiff Accepting $1,000 In Rule 68 Offer Entitled To Some Amount Of Fees Under Contract Principles

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Settlement

District Judge Erred In Denying Any Fees Based On Incorrect Civil Rights Fee-Shifting Analysis.             In Miller v. City of Portland, No. 14-35783 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017) (published), a civil rights plaintiff accepted a defense Rule 68 offer for $1,000 with reasonable attorney’s fees to be determined by the district court.  After plaintiff moved

CLASS ACTION:  $2.125 Million Fee Award To Class Counsel In Cy Pres-Only Settlement Was Proper

Cases: Class Actions

Award Was 25% Of Settlement Fund, Cross-Checked By Lodestar Totaling Ultimate Award.             In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig., No. 15-15858 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017) (published) is a case involving approval of a class action settlement involving a cy-press only settlement with respect to Internet privacy claims.  There was a $8.5 million settlement

Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Where Government Only Won 1% Of Its Demand Under False Claims Act, Defendant Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Equal Access To Justice Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Shifting Statute Was Plain, With Circumstances Requiring Reversal Of Fee Denial As To Contractor             The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has a mandatory fee-shifting provision that allows a court to award fees to a non-prevailing defendant where the government’s demand for damages in a case is “substantially in excess of the judgment

Class Action:  Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals, In A Posner-Authored Decision, Reverses Class Counsel Fee Award To Lodestar Found Reasonable

Cases: Class Actions

Nixes A 1.75 Positive Multiplier Based On Complexity And Class “Return.             Just to show you that class action fee awards are coming under increased appellate scrutiny, Circuit Judge Posner’s decision in In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litig., No. 16-3554 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2017) (published) on behalf of a

Class Action:  Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals, In A Posner-Authored Decision, Reverses Class Counsel Fee Award To Lodestar Found Reasonable

Cases: Class Actions

Nixes A 1.75 Positive Multiplier Based On Complexity And Class “Return.             Just to show you that class action fee awards are coming under increased appellate scrutiny, Circuit Judge Posner’s decision in In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litig., No. 16-3554 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2017) (published) on behalf of a

Intellectual Property:  Federal Circuit Determines That No Jury Trial Right Attaches To Awarding Attorney’s Fees Under Patent Act

Cases: Intellectual Property

Fees Are An Equitable Remedy, Left For Court Determination.             In AIA America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, No. 2016-2647 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2017) (published) (Hughes, J.), a district judge awarded a prevailing defendant over $3.9 million in attorney’s fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 285).  Plaintiff appealed, claiming this

Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  $65,000 CCP § 1038 Fee Sanctions Award Against Plaintiff Losing To Calaveras County Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Both Lack Of Objective And Subjective Good Faith Shown Below.             In Ponte v. County of Calaveras, Case No. C079180 (3d Dist. July 17, 2017 unpublished; published on Aug. 15, 2017), plaintiff asked Calaveras County to pay him over $150,000 to reimburse for work pursuant to an oral contract.  The lower court eventually granted summary

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717:  Lease Rescission Claim Did Give Rise To Successful Fee Recovery To The Tune Of $418,730.75 In Fees And $16,260.79 In Costs In Tenant’s Favor

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

“Any Remedy Hereunder” Lease Language Salted Away The Result.             In The Redbean House Corp. v. Colonnade Wilshire Corp., Case No. B276837 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 16, 2017) (unpublished), tenant successfully obtained rescission of a commercial lease based on a substantial seismic retrofit issue, although landlord obtained $49,647 in damages for waste after a

Special Fee Shifting Statute:  City’s Production Of Photographs And Emails After Court-Ordered Depositions In California Public Records Act Case Merited Fee Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Denial Of Fee Recovery Was Erroneous Because Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fee Under “Catalyst Theory."               “Litigation under the Public Records Act (PRA) (Gov. Code,1 § 6250 et seq.) is one of the rare instances where a losing party may still be deemed a prevailing party entitled to an attorney fee award. This is

Scroll to Top