Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General: Nonprofit Plaintiff Suspended Corporation During Short-Framed Validation Action Denied Private Attorney General Fees Under CCP § 1021.5 Where Suspension Not Disclosed To Trial Court Or Opponent

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  First Impression Issue, But Unique Circumstances, Required Reversal Of Fee Grant Involving Substantial Fee Recovery To Nonprofit.      This case shows how unique factual circumstances can drive cases, especially in the attorney’s fees recovery area of the law. Hold on, this is a wild ride but not necessarily given the unique factual circumstances involved. […]

Civil Rights/Costs: $7,660.19 FEHA/Non-FEHA Cost Award Against Losing Plaintiff Remanded In Light Of Williams/Roman Decisions

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

  2/8 DCA Adopts Reasoning of 2/7 DCA In Roman Decision On Costs Apportionment.      Metoyer v. L.A. Unified School Dist., Case No. B259458 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 22, 2016) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff brought both FEHA and non-FEHA claims, but was defensed after a jury verdict finding lack of causation—namely, that

Tort Of Another: Property Seller Properly Awarded $195,008.32 In Attorney’s Fees Against Dual Brokers Under “Tort Of Another” Doctrine

Cases: Tort of Another

  Contractual/Statutory Fee Deadlines And Other Principles Did Not Apply.     Lambert v. Francis, Case No. H041665 (6th Dist. Sept. 21, 2016) (unpublished) involved a long-standing case, with multiple appeals, between prevailing property purchasers and losing seller, with the seller eventually obtained equitable indemnity rights against dual brokers also sued in the overall case.  After

Allocation/Section 1717: Broadly-Worded Fees Clause Allowed Defrauded Residential Purchasers To Garner $345,539.19 In Costs/Attorney’s Fees Against Losing Defendant/Sellers

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Damages Were A Little Over $180,000.     Just to illustrate that attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 do not have to be proportional to the awarded compensatory damages, we now post on Pec v. Brackenbury, Case No. A142104 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 20, 2016) (unpublished).     There, residential property purchasers/plaintiff prevailed on

Ethics: Agency Prevailing In Easement Battle Properly Allowed $112,777.40 In Fee Recovery For Work By Disqualified Counsel

Cases: Ethics

  Disqualification Order Did Not Prevent Some Work By DQ-ed Counsel.     Yuba County Courthouse.  1933.  Library of Congress.      Western Water Co v. Yuba County Water Agency, Case No. C072058 (3d Dist. Sept. 16, 2016) (unpublished) involved a fight over the scope of a water easement between plaintiff successor and the Agency.  Plaintiff sued

Homeowners Association/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: $25,614 Post-Judgment Enforcement Fee Award To HOA Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  HOA Counsel Did Good Job Of Apportioning Fees As Far As Reasonableness Of Amount.     The attorney for the prevailing homeowners association (HOA) did something very smart in Bryan Ranch Homeowners Assn. v. Lawrence, Case No. A147659 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 16, 2016) (unpublished), which we will now describe.     There, a homeowner

Section 1717 And Poof!: Plaintiff Timely Dismissed Contract-Based Claims To Avoid 1717 Exposure Before Terminating Sanctions Hearing Was Decided

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

  Terminating Sanctions Motion Was Not On The Merits, So Voluntarily Dismissal Was Timely For Fee Avoidance Purposes. Skating on ice.  Irving Brokaw, c1908-1916.  Library of Congress.     Timing can be everything, as the next case demonstrates.     In Liu v. Trask, Case No. B258112 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 15, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff eventually

Pending Cases: California Supreme Court Grants Review To Tackle Certified Question By Ninth Circuit In Heller Ehrman Clawback Case

Cases: Cases Under Review

  Viability of Jewell v. Boxer Is At Stake.     In our July 30, 2016 post, we observed that the Ninth Circuit in In the Matter of Heller Ehrman LLP, Case No. 14-16314 (9th Cir. 7/27/16) (published) certified to the California Supreme Court the following outcome determinative question: “Under California law, does a dissolved law

Scroll to Top