Author name: Marc Alexander

Equity: Defendant Corporation Winning Summary Judgment Properly Obtained Attorney’s Fees Although Suspended But Later Obtaining Certificate Of Revivor To Be In Good Corporate Standing

Cases: Equity

  All Intervening Procedural Steps Were Validated, But Appellate Court Did Not Award Defendant Costs On Appeal.     In Morschauser v. Continental Capital, LLC, Case No. E062278 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 12, 2016) (unpublished), a defendant corporation successfully obtained summary judgment against plaintiff and then moved to recover $133,644.50 in attorney’s fees and costs […]

Arbitration/Requests For Admission: Substantial RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Awarded By Arbitrator Correctly Not Confirmed As A Judgment

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Requests for Admission

  Arbitration Submission Agreement Did Not Envision Fees And Costs At All.     An arbitrator in Centinela-Freeman Emergency Med. Associates v. Hispanic Physicians IPA Med. Corp., Case No. B258015 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 8, 2016) (unpublished) awarded request for admission costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420.  No trifling amount was awarded, because the RFA

Judgment Enforcement/Sanctions: $5,000 Sanctions Award Against Judgment Debtor’s Attorney For No Answer Instructions During Judgment Debtor Examination Was Vacated

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Sanctions

  Reason Is That Ground For Sanctions Was Statute Only Applying To Postjudgment Interrogatories And Document Requests, Not J/D Exams.     A lower court sanctioned a judgment debtor’s attorney to the tune of $5,000 under CCP § 2023.030 for directing a client not to answer certain questions at a judgment debtor examination.  The appellate court,

Landlord/Tenant: Prevailing Tenant Seeking Fees Under CCP § 1174.21 Relating To Substandard Conditions In Residential Tenancy Can Litigate Fee Entitlement Through Posttrial Motion

Cases: Landlord/Tenant

  Fee Entitlement Does Not Have To Be Shown At Trial.     In Active Properties, LLC v. Cabrera, Case No. BV031320 (L.A. Superior Court, Appellate Division Dec. 9, 2016) (published), the appellate division faced an interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.21, a provision allowing a tenant to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs

Cases Under Review: Two Cases Pending Before The California Supreme Court Will Have Decisions Issued Within The Next Few Months

Cases: Cases Under Review

  Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and DisputeSuite.com Cases Are The Ones.     We can now report that a couple of pending attorney’s fees cases before the California Supreme Court likely will be decided within the next few months.  Here are the issues and status updates:     1.  PRIVILEGED NATURE OF FEE INVOICES IN

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal Of Action After Obtaining Some Objectives Correctly Supported Denial Of Fee Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party

  However, Dismissal Did Trigger Routine Costs Recovery To Be Considered On Remand.     In Buck v. Brooks, Case No. A142929 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 5, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff limited partner sued to obtain more accountability from defendant general partner as far as the running of a limited partnership owning a San Leandro shopping

SLAPP/Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $66,627 SLAPP Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Plaintiff’s Challenges To Hourly Rates, Billing Substantiation, And Staffing Rejected By Trial and Appellate Courts.      Lund v. Gifford, Case No. B259366 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 2, 2016) (unpublished) is a good example of how a successful defendant’s attorneys should draft a fee petition after winning a SLAPP motion on behalf of their

Judgment Enforcement: Motion To Discharge Procedure In Surety Bond Action Encompasses Fees On Related Work

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

However, Work Not Incurred In Particular Special Surety Action Was Not Compensable.      Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6 gives courts discretion to award costs and attorney’s fees to a party who pursues the deposit and discharge procedure provided by section 386.5 in a post-judgment surety bond case, namely, allowing a neutral stakeholder to apply

Scroll to Top