Author name: Marc Alexander

Family Law: Wife’s Attorney Was Liable For $6,000 In Discovery Sanctions But $10,000 Sanctions Against Attorney Under Family Law Section 271 Reversed

Cases: Family Law

  Reason Is That 271 Sanctions Do Not Lie Against An Attorney, Just The Litigant.      In Marriage of Noble, Case No. H041148 (6th Dist. Aug. 3, 2016) (unpublished), wife’s attorney challenged a $6,000 discovery sanctions award against her and a separate $10,000 sanctions award against her under Family Code section 271. The appellate court […]

Section 998: 998 Offer Invalidated Where Defendant Offeror Included A Settlement Release Which Was General In Nature And Extended Past The Claims Involved In The Lawsuit

Cases: Section 998

  Although Identification Of Releasing Parties Does Not Invalidate An Offer, Inclusion of General Release/Section 1542 Waivers Did Void The Offer. Freight train operations on the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad between Chicago and Clinton, Iowa. The rear brakeman signals the engineer to apply and release the brakes as a test. This is the "release" sign. 

Family Law: No Statement Of Decision Required For Fees Award And Lower Court Only Needed To Consider Relevant Needs-Based Factors

Cases: Family Law

$28,500 Fee Request By Mother Found Unreasonable, With Lower Court’s Order Of $3,500 Under Family Code Sections 2030/2032 Being Sustained On Appeal.     Mother, in Marriage of Morcos-Jewgieniew and Jewgieniew, Case No. G050727 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 1, 2016) (unpublished), requested $28,500 in fees based on “need” under Family Code sections 2030 and 2032,

Private Attorney General: $296,100 Fee Award To Class Plaintiffs Affirmed In Case Where Trial Court Ordered California Highway Patrol To Comply With Arrest Detention Requirement

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Significant Benefit Conferred When Law Enforcement Agencies Are Ordered To Implement The Law Correctly.      In Schmidt v. California Highway Patrol, Case No. B260643 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 1, 2016) (published), a class was certified and a writ petition granted in a case to compel the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to comply with Penal

Costs: Reasonable Attorney And Paralegal Expenses To Compile Administrative Record Are Compensable To Prevailing Party In Land Use Writ Proceeding Under CCP Section 1094.5

Cases: Costs

  Analogy To CEQA Decisional Authority Found Persuasive.      In No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Lehigh Southwest Cement Co., Case No. H040047 (6th Dist. July 28, 2016) (published), prevailing party in a legal nonconforming use writ petition sought to recoup the expenses for compiling an administrative record which were incurred by its attorneys and paralegal.

In The News: Ninth Circuit Certifies Question To California Supreme Court On Whether A Dissolved Law Firm Has Any Property Interest In Unfinished Hourly Business

In The News

  Jewel v. Boxer’s Continued Viability Is Squarely Under Consideration.      In our June 14, 2014 post, we discussed U.S. District Judge Breyer’s decision in In the Matter of Heller Ehrman LLP, in which he determined that a dissolved law firm did not have a property interest in its pending hourly matters at a dissolution

Appealability, Consumer Statutes, Deeds Of Trust: Borrower’s Appeal of Trial Court’s Denial Of Fees To Borrower Winning Preliminary Injunction Under California Homeowner Bill Of Rights Was Dismissed

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

  Borrower Appealed From A Nonappealable Interlocutory Order.      In Monterossa v. Superior Court, 237 Cal.App.4th 747, 751 (2015) [discussed in our June 14, 2015 post], the Third District decided that a borrower obtaining preliminary, rather permanent, injunctive relief under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights may be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees

Family Law: Failure To Use Updated Financial Information For Husband Leads To Reversal Of Wife’s Fee Request Denial

Cases: Family Law

  Updated Information Might Show Disparity Existed For “Needs Based” Fee Award.      In Marriage of Kelley & Nelson, Case No. B266745 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 22, 2016) (unpublished), wife’s request for “needs based” fees was denied. However, that decision was reversed on appeal because the lower court did not use husband’s updated financial

Scroll to Top