Author name: Marc Alexander

Family Law, Reasonableness Of Fees: Marital Settlement Agreement Did Not Preclude Needs-Based Fees To Ex-Husband, But Remand Required Because Appellate Court Could Not Determine The Basis Of The $10,000 Needs-Based Award To Wife

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

She Asked For $72,355, With Appellate Court Unsure As To How This Amount Was Reached.             Both ex-husband and ex-wife were unhappy with needs-based awards to each in Konkov v. Doubson, Case No. H050705 (6th Dist. May 14, 2024) (unpublished).  Both appealed, with mixed results but not certain that anything would change on remand.             […]

Appealability, Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation: Prevailing Party In Appellate Writ Proceeding Was Entitled To Small Routine Costs, But Not Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Appeal Costs Order Was Appealable, But There Was No Fee Entitlement Basis—Estoppel Argument Was Rejected.             In Kaur v. Pabla, Case No. F086273 (5th Dist. May 14, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs obtained an appellate writ mandate order and moved for appellate costs, both routine expenses and attorney’s fees.  In the end, the routine cost of $775

Prevailing Party: Defendant Was The Prevailing Party When Plaintiffs Were Not Awarded Damages Out Of A Requested $667,000 On Contractual Indemnification/Duty To Defend Claims

Cases: Prevailing Party

Plaintiff’s Obtaining A Declaration Of A Limited Duty Of Indemnify And Defense To Two Of Three Underlying Actions Was Eclipsed By Defeat Of Damages Claims And Defendant’s Obtaining Summary Adjudication That The Duty To Indemnity And To Defendant Was Cut Off By A Prior Date For Most Of The Alleged Duties.             We know that

Costs, Discovery: Court Of Appeal Found Nothing Wrong In Allowing Recovery Of Routine Costs For Filing Discovery Motions, Even If They Were Unsuccessful And Costs/Fees Were Denied Against Defendants In The Discovery Proceedings

Cases: Costs, Cases: Discovery

No Authority Shown To Conclude Otherwise, With Routine Costs And Actual Discovery Sanctions Serving Distinct Purposes.                In BBBB Bonding Corp. v. Pilling-Miller, Case Nos. H050703 et al. (6th Dist. May 10, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff lost trade secret misappropriation and related claims, with costs of $34,989 out of a requested $44,989 awarded to the prevailing

Reasonableness Of Fees: $69,930 Was The Fee Award In An Unlawful Detainer Action Where A Summary Judgment Was Granted During COVID Times

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Incivility Defense Not Accepted By The Lower Court.                A plaintiff landlord during the COVID pandemic suffered an adverse summary judgment in an unlawful detainer case, fighting all the way—which litigants are entitled to do.  In Lighthouse Brooks, LLC v. Affinity House, Inc., Case No. B323615 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 9, 2024) (unpublished), the

Equity: Appellate Court Summarily Reverses Fee Grant Order After Referee’s Merits Decision Reversed

Cases: Equity

Court Of Appeal Decided It Had Independent Authority To Summarily Reverse Despite Clear Statutory Authority To Do So.                In Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Case No. G062524 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 8, 2024) (unpublished by-the-court opinion), a referee’s prior merits decision was reversed and remanded, with the aggrieved party also

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Section 1021.5 Fee Request Properly Denied Where Trial Court Concluded That Its Government Claim/Suit Did Not Inspire Government Action On Health Permits During The Covid Pandemic

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Substantial Evidence Was The Review Standard, So The Factual Finding Submarined A Catalyst Theory Challenge On Appeal.                In Costeaux French Bakery, Inc. v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A166727 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff sought private attorney general’s fees under a catalyst theory.  What basically happened was that the County

Insurance: Party Claiming Brandt Fees As Damages Impliedly Waives Attorney-Client Privileges As To Some Fee Information

Cases: Insurance

However, Appellate Court Indicated Some Redactions Were In Order And No Bifurcation Was Required As To Liability Versus Reasonableness Of Fees.                Byers v. Superior Court, Case No. A169321 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 7, 2024) (published) posed this issue and answered it:  Does a party seeking attorney’s fees as damages under Brandt v. Superior

Appealability, SLAPP: Reversal Of Defendant’s SLAPP Motion Vacated Fee Award, But Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions Was Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

Everyone Gets To Keeping Litigating!                In Sayarad v. Butler-Lopez, Case No. A166884 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 6, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff suffered a partial grant of a SLAPP motion, resulting in an adverse attorney’s fees award as to one defendant of $42,031.50, and with the lower court denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on

Reasonableness Of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $47,513.67 Fee Award To Hospital and Medical Staff Affirmed On Appeal In Peer Review Proceeding

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$71,270.50 Request, Reduced, Was Proper, With Appellant’s Technical Arguments Rejected.                In Nowzari v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Case No. B321862 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 2, 2024) (unpublished), a plaintiff physician’s hospital privileges were restricted by a peer review body, triggering physician’s filing of a petition for a writ of the mandate

Scroll to Top