Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General: Company Vindicating Its Right To Immediate Superior Court Relief On Unemployment Insurance Benefit Issue Was Entitled To § 1021.5 Fees Even Though Decision So Ruling Was Unpublished In Nature

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Published Decision Helps, But Not A Requirement In This Area With Respect To Significant Public Benefit Issue. “Print shows a scene at the ‘Income Tax Office’ with a crowd clamoring at the door where a notice states ‘One at a Time’; inside, a wealthy man is standing by a desk, on the floor at […]

Probate: Under Equitable Powers, Probate Court Could Impose Attorney’s Fees Against Beneficiaries In Trust Proceeding, Litigated In Bad Faith By Beneficiaries, Even If Beneficiaries Did Not Instigate It

Cases: Probate

  However, Fees Can Only Be Imposed Against Beneficiaries’ Trust Shares, Not Imposed Personally Against Them.      Driving nail in coffin.  May, 1918.  Library of Congress.      Pizarro v. Reynoso, Case No. C077594 (3d Dist. Jan. 18, 2017) (published) is a situation where a probate court imposed attorney’s fees against beneficiaries after finding the litigants

Section 1717: Bank’s Assignee On Open Book Account Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Sections 1717 Or Section 1717.5(c)

Cases: Section 1717

  No Written Contract—No 1717 Fees; Banks And Assignees—No Go Under 1717(c).      In Professional Collection Consultants v. Brown, Case No. B270128 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 17, 2017) (unpublished), bank’s assignee (collection consultants) requested the trial judge to award it $148,792 in contractual attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 or $800 in statutory

SLAPP: Attorneys Fees/Costs Awardable To Prevailing SLAPP Defendant When The Winning Grounds Were Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Cases: SLAPP

  California Supreme Court Decides Any Other Interpretation Would Gut SLAPP Policies.       The California Supreme Court, in Barry v. State Bar of California, Case No. S214058 (Cal. Supreme Court Jan. 5, 2017), confronted the issue of whether a prevailing defendant (the State Bar) was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs when

Class Action: Objector In Separate Action Claiming Substantial Benefit Entitlement To Fees Denied Fees Because Fee Request Was Untimely And Objector Did Not Substantially Add Value To Class Action Settlement

Cases: Class Actions

  $5 Million Fee Request Snubbed At Both Trial And Appellate Levels.      Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, Case No. A145891 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 12, 2017) (unpublished) concerned an objector’s challenge to an award of fees and costs to class counsel in a main action, although objector was involved in a separate, more peripheral

Costs:  2/5 DCA Confirms That Telephonic Appearance Are Recoverable Routine Costs

Cases: Costs

  CCP § 367.6(c) Is The California Statutory Section.             Here is quick one under routine costs.  Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Kumar, sitting by assignment on the 2/5 DCA, confirmed in Shatford v. Knight, Case No. B269337 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 6, 2017) (unpublished), that telephonic court appearances are recoverable routine costs

Lien For Attorney Fees:  Delaware Supreme Court Determines Attorney Charging Lien, In Hourly Case Representation, Properly Claimed For Entire Hourly Amount, Not Just Amounts Tethered Directly To Obtaining Beneficial Litigation Results

Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees

Narrowing Charging Liens To Only Beneficial Services Would Improperly Rewrite Attorney Lien Contractual Arrangement In Hourly Cases.             Although we generally post on California cases, we stray to discuss a recent attorney’s lien decision from Delaware, which may have some persuasive impact in California cases considering attorney’s liens.             In Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP v.

Consumer Statutes: Potentially Prevailing Plaintiff On Appeal May Have Entitlement To Fee Recovery Under CLRA Where Only Sought Injunctive Relief Despite Rejecting Defense Correction Notice

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Plaintiff Is Not Disqualified From Fee Recovery Given Only Injunctive Relief Requested Under CLRA Claim; Matter Remanded For District Court To Determine Prevailing Party Status.     Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, No. 14-56305 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2017) (published) involved a situation where a plaintiff won a summary judgment and sustained it on appeal in

Scroll to Top