Author name: Marc Alexander

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Defendants Homeowners/HOA’s Fee Recovery As Prevailing Party Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Losing Plaintiff’s Fee Denial Also Affirmed In Dueling Fee Motion Case.     Homeowner/landowner cases seem to bring a lot of angst and emotions, maybe not as much as the recent presidential election, but still on the top level on a range scale from 1 to 10—we would say most disputes are in the 7-10 […]

SLAPP: Appellate Court Reverses SLAPP Fee Award Of $26,320 Against Defendant And Its Attorneys After Unsuccessful Appeal Of SLAPP Denial

Cases: SLAPP

  SLAPP Motion Was Not Frivolous, And Appeal Court Did Not Find Prior Appeal Frivolous In Nature.     Defendant filed a SLAPP motion which was denied, appealing without success.  Then, upon remand, the lower court awarded attorney’s fees on appeal in favor of plaintiff and against defendant (and possibly its attorneys) to the tune of

Allocation/Consumer Statutes: Prevailing Dealer In BMW Dispute Properly Awarded 30% Of Requested Fees Based On Dealer’s Own Allocation

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes

  Dealer Did A Smart Thing Here In Apportioning Fees Between Claims.    Tun v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Case No. D070447 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 7, 2016) (published) is a nice illustration of a smart move that a prevailing party undertook under a fee-shifting statute in its fee petition papers.  That move was

Insurance: On Remand, Intermediate Appellate Court Includes Brandt Fees And Then Finds $475,000 In Punitive Damages Rather Than $19 Million Justified Based On Prior Trial Court Remittitur

Cases: Fees as Damages, Cases: Insurance

  Case Was On Remand From California Supreme Court.     On June 9, 2016, we posted on Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 63 Cal.4th 363, 368, 371, 377 (2016), which decided that Brandt fees should be added to compensatory damages for purposes of determining the compensatory damages ratio for purposes of adjudging the reasonableness

Fee Clause Interpretation/Probate: No Contest Clause In Amended Trust Instrument Did Not Confer Contractual Fee Entitlement Basis

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Probate

  $26,630 Fee Award Reversed On Appeal.     A fertile ground for an appeal in the fee area is that the pertinent attorney’s fees clause simply does not allow for a fee recovery based on its wording where parol evidence is not introduced (and it rarely is in fee disputes).  Kiwata v. Kiwata, Case Nos.

Requests For Admission: RFA Cost-Of-Proof Awards Are More Often Denied Than Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Requests for Admission

Check Out Our Sidebar Category “Requests For Admission.”      Under our sidebar category “Requests for Admission” we have posted some five dozen times about published, as well as unpublished, appellate decisions affirming or denying a trial court’s grant or denial of cost-of-proof sanctions for failure to admit requests for admission.  After doing this for eight

Section 1717, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendants Winning Verbal Contract Restaurant Purchase Dispute Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  However, Defense Was Entitled To Open Book Account Fees Under Civil Code Section 1717.5.     c1880.  Library of Congress.      Defendants, the putative buyers of a restaurant business known as Bosco’s Bones & Brew in Sunol, CA, were sued by plaintiffs/putative sellers in Alevamare, Inc. v. Truong, Case A144337 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Oct.

Family Law: Trial Judge’s Fixation On Domestic Violence Factor, To The Exclusion Of Other Economic Factors, Required Reversal Of Needs-Based Fee Request By Husband

Cases: Family Law

  271 Sanctions Award Also Reversed, But Child Support Enforcement/DVRO Fees Against Husband Were Sustained On Appeal.     Just to show you how appellate courts “balance the equities,” husband won some and lost some in a challenge to a denial of a Family Code section 2030 needs-based fees award, a grant of section 271 sanctions

Costs/Section 1717: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Prevailing On Claims Involving Limited Partnership Interpretation Entitled To Section 1717 Fees

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 1717

  Reversed Denial of Fees; However, Denial Of Costs Award Was Proper In “Mixed” Case Involving Nondiscretionary And Discretionary Cost Categorical Results.     Chima v. Chima, Case No. C075602 (3d Dist. Oct. 31, 2016) (unpublished) is a situation where children beneficiaries under a trust, as plaintiffs/cross-defendants, prevailed in a suit where their father’s step-wife, on

Allocation, Civil Rights, Paralegals, Reasonableness Of Fees: Substantial Fee Recovery Remanded Based On Merits Reversal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Paralegal Time, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  However, Appellate Court Provides Remand Guidance On Allocation, Paralegal Compensation, And Reasonableness Issues.      In Samuelson v. Dept. of State Hospitals, Case No. A143149 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 28, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded $1 million in damages against defendants Dept. of State Hospitals and three psychologists hired by Napa State Hospital based

Scroll to Top