Author name: Marc Alexander

Costs/Section 998: $112,457.89 In Expert Witness Fees And Other Costs Affirmed In Contentious Prescriptive Easement/Easement Destruction Case

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  Compensatory/Punitive Award To Winning Plaintiffs Was Only $88,270.      This next case illustrates how Code of Civil Procedure section 998 can be a true costs-shifting statute of importance, given that the expert witness fees and other routine costs outstripped the compensatory and punitive damages award to the winning plaintiffs.      In Arnold v. Padrah, […]

4/3 DCA Trifecta: Appellate Court Issues Three Fee Unpublished Decisions

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Settlement

Source:  Wikipedia.  Article “Trifecta.” Prevailing Party/Settlement: Goldenwest Plaza, LLC v. The Frank and Gertrude R. Doyle Foundation, Case No. G050766 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2016) (Unpublished) –Split Result Meant No Prevailing Party.      This case was a messy partition case where differing ownership interests with disputes on management of a shopping center brought

Substantiation Of Fees: Attorney Summaries, Not Detailed Billings, Will Suffice For Fee Substantiation Under The Right Circumstances

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Trial Judge Found Summaries Credible—Credibility Being The Key.     In American Diversified Properties, Inc. v. Re/EX Valencia, Inc., Case No. B260155 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 22, 2106) (unpublished), appellant challenged a fee order on the ground that the attorney relied on summaries rather than detailed billing records.  The appellate court rejected this challenge,

Arbitration/Prevailing Party: Former Employer Of Highly Compensated Former Executive, Prevailing Party In Arbitration, Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees Of $3.25 Million And Costs Of Almost $357,000

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Who Says Arbitration Cannot Be Costly?  Not Us.     This next illustrates that arbitrations can be costly affairs.     In Kent v. The Wine Group, LLC, Case No. A145104 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 19, 2016) (unpublished), former CEO who did grow the company in extraordinary fashion filed an arbitration demand against his former

Costs/Fee Substantiation: $5,560 In Expert Witness Fee Claimed As Costs Are Excised On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  However, $212,076.50 In Defense Fees Under Civil Code Section 1717 Are Sustained.     In Steiner v. Thexton, Case No. C075266 (3d Dist. Aug. 18, 2016) (unpublished), the defense won a case and was awarded $212,076.50 out of a requested $214,576.50 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717—with the loser not contesting fee entitlement

Employment: Former Employee Prevailing On Unpaid Wages Claim In Unlimited Jurisdiction Court Was Entitled To $40,000 Fee Recovery

Cases: Employment

  Damages Award Was Inside Of $25,000 Jurisdictional Limit, But Lower Court Did Not Abuse Discretion By Granting Fees Anyway.     California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a) does allow a trial judge to discretionarily deny any award of attorney’s fees to a litigant who files an unlimited jurisdiction case but obtains a damages award

In The News Post . . . . Litigant Settling “Happy Birthday To You” Public Domain Suit Awarded $4.6 Million In Fees Under Copyright Act

In The News

  33% Of Settlement Recovery Deemed Far By C.D. Cal. District Judge.     This post should bring a smile to everyone.  A litigant settling a copyright case resulting in the famous “Happy Birthday To You” song becoming part of the public domain requested attorney’s fees after reaching a $14 million settlement.  The request was for

Appealability, Consumer Statutes, Deeds Of Trust: Third District’s Sese Decision Now Published

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Deeds of Trust

  Dealt With Appealability Of Denial Of Fee Award To Plaintiff Winning Preliminary Injunction Under California Homeowner Bill Of Rights.     In our post of July 30, 2016, we discussed the unpublished decision in Sese v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which ruled that a plaintiff winning a preliminary injunction under the California Homeowner Bill of

Scroll to Top