Author name: Marc Alexander

Appeal Sanctions/Employment/Indemnity:  Intermediate Appellate Courts Confront Hodgepodge Of Issues

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity

  Employment—Nicolosi v. Cooper, Case No. B264459 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 17 2017) (Unpublished)–$64,000 In Fees Just Fine In $80,933.75 Back Wages Case.               This one is not hard to fathom.  Employee obtained $80,933.75 in back wages and $64,000 in attorney’s fees (out of a requested $130,000).  Employee appealed, arguing not enough was […]

Continuing Education:  May 2017 Edition Of Orange County Lawyer Has Good Instruction Guide For State Court Attorney’s Fees Motions

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

Author Steven S. Streger Is Orange County Superior Court Senior Staff Attorney.               Steven S. Streger, a senior staff attorney with the Orange County Superior Court, has authored an article in the May 2017 edition of the Orange County Lawyer, aptly entitled “Attorney Fee Motions:  Hunting for Fluff and the Avoidable Haircut.”  Given his

Prevailing Party/Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Federal False Claims Act Does Allow Prevailing Defendant To Recover Attorney’s Fees For A Subject Matter Jurisdiction Win

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

    Merits Win Not Required, Agreeing With Two Other Decisions As Far As Breadth Of False Claims Act Prevailing Party Definitional Scope.             Dr. Ralph's Pills.  Library of Congress.             In Amphastar Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA, Nos. 14-56382/15-56204 (9th Cir. May 11, 2017) (published), the defense won a

Prevailing Party/Section 1717:  Defendant Beating Primary Rescission/Restitution Claim Did Prevail For Purposes Of Section 1717 Despite Losing Cross-Claims

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

    Dispute Arose Over Filming Rights For Jimi Hendrix’s 1969 Performance At London’s Royal Albert Hall.   Photograph of Jimi Hendrix taken in Sweden.  May 24, 1967.  Wikipedia.                  Although unpublished, Experience Hendrix, LLC v. The Last Experience, Case No. B268414 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 8, 2017) (unpublished) takes us down

Happy Ninth Birthday, California Attorney’s Fees

Off Topics

The Birthday Cake. Harry Whittier Frees, photographer.  1914.  Library of Congress.          We — Mike Hensley and Marc Alexander — began publishing California Attorney's Fees on May 9, 2009.   As we said in our Mission Statement: Our mission is simple: provide a resource tool to practitioners, jurists, and the public about the law governing attorneys’

Lodestar/Private Attorney General: 1021.5 Fees Must Be Based On Lodestar Methodology, Not Percentage Of Recovery Test

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Re-Do Was The Result In This One.            Above:  Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar.  Source: www.airwaysmuseum.com             In Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Company, Inc., Case No. B270168 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge in a class action case awarded $29,409 in attorney’s fees to class counsel under

Equity, Sanctions, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Allocation:  Unpublished Decisions In Last Few Days Address Multiple Fee Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

    Equity—Gilotti v. Stewart, Case No. C075611 (3d Dist. April 26, 2017) (Unpublished):  Section 998 Offer, Typo Notwithstanding Valid, and Attorney’s Self Interest Disqualified Fee Recovery.                   In this construction defect lawsuit, plaintiff was ordered to pay a prevailing grading contractor expert fees under CCP § 998, even though the offer said $49,999

Private Attorney General: Although Project Proponent Ultimately Succeeding In Reversing A Project Mandamus Blocking Judgment Is Entitled To 1021.5 Fee Recovery, It Is Not Authorized Against A Litigant Who Did Not Impair Or Compromise Public Rights

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  In Fact, First Win Was One To Enforce Environmental Laws.     Botanical Building in Balboa Park.  May 2013.  Carol M. Highsmith, photographer.  Library of Congress.     In Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO) v. City of San Diego, Case No. D070006 (4th Dist., Div. 1 April 27, 2017) (published), a certain Committee, proponent of a project to

Section 1717:  Prevailing Plaintiff’s Action To Rescind Car Contract Based On Fraud Was “On The Contract” Under Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717

  $80,806.50 Fee Award Affirmed Where $11,642.10 Compensatory Damages And Cancellation Of Car Loan Was The End Result.                Replica of first car made and sold by Toyota:  the 1936 Toyota Standard Sedan AA.  Photo:  Bertel Schmitt. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.             In Valencia v. Hooman Toyota of

Scroll to Top