Author name: Marc Alexander

In The News . . . . Delaware Supreme Court Decides That Key Man Employment Advancement Of Defense Costs Provision Is Not Impaired By Company’s Fraud In Inducement Claim

Cases: Indemnity, In The News

  Any Other Result Would Retard Individuals Going Into “Corporate Service.”     The Delaware Supreme Court, in Trascent Mgt. Consulting, LLC v. Bouri, Case No. 126, 2016 (Del. Supreme Ct. Nov. 28, 2016), was confronted with an LLC’s claim that it did not have to advance costs of defense to a “key man” employee in […]

Costs: City Of Kingsburg Timely Moved To Recoup CEQA Record Preparation Costs In Litigation And Losing Side Did Not Meet Its Burden To Tax Costs

Cases: Costs

  Two Cities Go Against Each Other On Costs Recovery.     City of Selma v. City of Kingsburg, Case No. F072632 (5th Dist. Nov. 29, 2016) (unpublished) cast two Central Valley municipalities against each other in a situation where we would guess cities are fiscally making moves to get whatever moneys they can.     Kingsburg,

Allocation/Section 1717: Lower Court Erred In Denying Fees To Prevailing Defendant Under Section 1717 Based On “Unity Of Interest” Principle Applicable To Other Unsuccessful Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Apportionment Was Required On Remand—Consideration Of Many Factors.     In Bank of Southern California, N.A. v. D&D Goryoka, Inc., Case No. D069767 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 29, 2016) (unpublished), defendant/cross-complainant was denied a prevailing party fee request as against plaintiff/cross-defendant Bank to the tune of a $908,171.25 request (later reduced to $795,753). 

Fee Clause Interpretation: Fees Clause Only Allowing For Fee Recovery Only In Arbitrated Matter Did Not Provide Entitlement To A Party Involved In A Judicial Reference Proceeding

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Lack Of Fee Entitlement Was Clear.     In Davis v. The J. Hartman Co., Case No. G051648 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 28, 2016) (unpublished), a fees clause in a real estate independent contractor consulting agreement provided that a judge or arbitrator in an arbitration had to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing

MCLE/Ethics: Ensure That Your Clients Pay Your Fees

Cases: Ethics, CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

Professional Responsibility Article Covers Basics Of Proper Retainer Letter And Attorney Billing Practices.      Under the heading “Ensure That Your Clients Pay Your Fees”, attorney Lorraine M. Walsh of Walnut Creek has written an ethics/professional responsibility article that appears in the November 4, 2016 on-line edition of the Los Angeles Daily Journal.  Ms. Walsh covers

Equity/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Dissenting Brother, Who Lost Partition Sale Dispute, Not Erroneously Saddled With Fees And Costs Incurred By Other Prevailing Siblings

Cases: Equity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Oh, Brother! — Case Illustrates Equitable Principles Are Front And Center In Partition Disputes.     Partition disputes are equitable, with a broad fee-shifting statute in the form of Code of Civil Procedure section 874.040 allowing a trial court broad discretion to equitably apportion fees and costs among the parties to the partition action.    

Civil Rights/Lodestar: Trial Court Award Of Fees Under Section 1983 Reversed And Remanded For Impermissible Double Deduction From Lodestar And Failure To Consider Limited Success In Calculating Fees On Fees

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

  Also, Costs Improperly Excluded From Fee Calculus As Permitted Under § 1983.     The Third District in Clapp v. Terry, Case No. C076562 (3d Dist. Nov. 23, 2016) (unpublished) is an important primer on the proper methodology to be used when awarding lodestar fees, fees on fees, and costs in civil right cases to

Family Law: $210,000 Section 271 Sanctions Award Upheld On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

  Inadequate Appellate Record Required Affirmance – “A Little Learning Is A Dangerous Thing”.1    Marriage of Hettinga & Loumena, Case No. H041589 (6th Dist. Nov. 22, 2016) (unpublished) shows the dangers of undertaking an appeal without knowing the nuances of appellate practice.  In this one, wife—who previously had been sanctioned $100,000 and declared a

Scroll to Top