Author name: Marc Alexander

Discovery, Sanctions: $9,495 In Sanctions Against Client And Her Attorney For Failing To Reasonably Meet And Confer On Discovery Disputes Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Unpublished Opinion Has A Discussion On What Not To Do In The Meet And Confer Battles.                In Estate of Ambrose-Gordon, Case Nos. A169189 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 24, 2024) (unpublished), a probate litigant and her attorney were sanctioned $9,495 in discovery sanctions for failing to reasonably meet and confer with the […]

Fee Clause Interpretation, Judgment Enforcement, Section 1717: $70,635 Attorney’s Fees Award Favorable To Nonsignatory To A Contract, Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Nonsignatory Did Not Seek To Enforce The Contract, With No Judgment Enforcement Fees Available To The Nonsignatory.                Crooymans v. Foumberg, Case No. B325110 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 18, 2024) (unpublished) is a stark reminder that a nonsignatory to a contract, more often than not, does not face fee exposure under

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Homeowner Only Achieving Marginal Success, But Not Removing Quorum Requirements Or Board Member Removals, Was Not A Pragmatic Prevailing Party

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

Davis-Stirling Act And CC&R Provisions Did Not Require A Fee Award To Homeowner.                In Mays v. Oakview Homeowners Assn., Case Nos. D083707 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 17, 2024) (unpublished), homeowner received a fairly limited mandate win to direct the HOA to conduct an election to replace board directors whose terms had

Paralegal Time, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Reduced Change Of Venue Fee Award Of $9,019.50 To Certain Defendants Affirmed In Part

Cases: Paralegal Time, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lower Court Properly Did Not Award Self-Represented Attorney Any Fees Relating To Himself (But Okay For Other Codefendants), But Matter Remanded To Apportion Fees And To Award Paralegal Compensation For A Law Clerk’s Work.                Civil Code section 396b, subd. (b) allows a lower court, in its discretion, to award attorney’s fees to a defendant

Costs, Deadlines, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $175,252.50 Fee Award Under Financial Elder Abuse Statute Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Request Reduced Down From $203,865; Two Awarded Routine Costs Components Remanded For A Further Hearing.                In Thompson v. Ito, Case No. G061437 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 12, 2024) (unpublished), a defendant losing a trust undue influence case and determined to have committed financial elder abuse was hit with an adverse attorney’s fees

Laffey Matrix: For Complex Federal Fee-Shifting Cases In The District Of Columbia, Many Courts Are Endorsing Use Of The Fitzpatrick Matrix

Cases: Laffey Matrix

Vanderbilt Professor And His Students Updated Information From The U.S. Attorney’s Office In The Original Laffey Matrix.                Although it has not been used outside of the District of Columbia, D.C. fee claimants now have another alternative for establishing reasonable hourly rates of their attorneys, with some caveats:  the Fitzpatrick Matrix.                Vanderbilt Professor Brian

Allocation, Indemnity, Reasonableness Of Fees: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Winning $48,511.50 On Certain Intentional Tort Claims And Defeating A Complaint In An Occupancy License Indemnity Dispute Properly Awarded $225,894 In Contractual Attorney Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Opposing Party Did Not Adequately Provide A Litigation History Roadmap, Never Suggested A Reduced Award Amount, And Never Attacked Specific Billing Entries; No Allocation Necessary Because Work Was Inextricably Intertwined.                Cubework.com, Inc. v. Solo Trading, Case No. B330959 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 6, 2024) (unpublished) has some nice tips for what opposing parties

Insurance: Insured’s Brandt Fee Recovery Affirmed On Appeal Where Insured-Counsel Agreement Modified Before Trial But Disclosed To Insurer

Cases: Insurance

No Manipulation Of Fees Shown, With Insurer Not Having Standing To Challenge The Fee Agreement As Unconscionable.                Wietsma v. Foremost Ins. Co. of Grand Rapids, MI, Case No. C097885 (3d Dist. May 30, 2024) (unpublished) involved challenges to a Brandt fee recovery by the insured, although in a much reduced fashion from the original

Section 998: This Provision Does Not Provide An Independent Basis For Fee Entitlement, You Either Have It Or Not Under Fee Entitlement Predicates

Cases: Section 998

Nothing In Accepted 998 Offer Or Subsequent Settlement Agreement Had A Fee Entitlement In Them.                We have always blogged that a threshold issue is whether a claimant has a fee entitlement basis.  If you do not, you lose.  That was the case in Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. C097296 (3d

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Court Of Appeal Reverses, As A Matter Of Law, Fee Denial To Mobile Home Park Because Voluntary Dismissal By Plaintiff Of MRL Claims Made Mobile Home Park A Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

On Remand, Reasonableness Of Fees And Allocation On MRL Claims Were The Charge Of The Lower Court.                In Stooksberry v. El Rova Mobile Home Park, LLC, Case No B329202 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 29, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff resident dismissed a complaint alleging late payment of rent, fee increases, and other claims arising under

Scroll to Top