Author name: Marc Alexander

SLAPP: Plaintiff Loses Appeal Against One Defendant Group Because It Was Premature; Another Defendant Group Properly Denied SLAPP Fees Based On Trope

Cases: SLAPP

  SLAPP Fee Award For One Defendant Group Affirmed; SLAPP Fee Denial Against Another Defendant Affirmed.     In Christiansen v. Gross, Case No. B256668 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 8, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff was SLAPP-ed by two defendant groups.  However, the trial judge determined that one defendant group should receive $37,320, while another defendant group […]

Judgment Enforcement: Wife Had No Standing To Challenge Added Post-Judgment Enforcement Costs Added To Judgment Obtained Against Husband

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Wife Didn’t Have Standing To Contest Costs Addition, But Did Have Remedies To The Extent Her Post-Dissolution Interest Was Impacted.      In Comerica Bank v. Runyon, Case No. G051364 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 7, 2016) (unpublished), Comerica obtained a judgment based on a guaranty against husband. Comerica then moved to obtain additional costs

Retainer Agreement/Section 1717: Unsigned Retainer Agreement, With Explanation, Justified Fee Recovery By Attorney Under Civil Code Section 1717 Based Upon Dismissal Of Legal Malpractice Tort Claims

Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee Clause Was Broad Enough To Allow For Recovery Of Fees, With Destruction Of Signed Fee Agreement By Terminated Attorney Not Precluding Recovery.      Stolz v. Fleischner, Case No. E062781 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 6, 2016) (unpublished) is a situation where a terminated attorney won a fee recovery of $27,120 (out of a

Section 1717/Standard of Review: Elements Of Contractual Fee Recovery Nicely Set Forth In Unpublished Decision

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review

  4/3 DCA Does It Succinctly And Well.     Presiding Justice O’Leary, in a 3-0 unpublished decision by the Fourth District, Division 3, affirmed a $76,890 contractual fee award against a plaintiff unsuccessfully attempting to unwind a foreclosure sale in Melgar v. Deutsche Bank National Trust, Case No. G051225 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 4,

Cases Under Review: SCOTUS Grants Certiorari Petition On Eighth Circuit Decision Reversing Fee Award Against EEOC Because Dismissal Was Not On The Merits

Cases: Cases Under Review

  Standard For Fee Recovery Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) At Issue, With Cert Petition Saying Different Thinking In Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits.      On December 4, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 774 F.3d 1169 (8th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, No.

Class Action/Lodestar: N.D. Ill. District Judge Provides Some Nice Clues On What To Claim Under Lodestar Analysis In Class Action Fee Request

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar

  Lodestar Was The Methodology In Statutory Fee-Shifting Matter.      Chief Judge Ruben Castillo of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, has provided a nice discussion and clues of what to include in a lodestar request in an attorney’s fees motion in a class action arising under a fee-shifting statute, namely, the Magnuson-Moss

Judgment Enforcement: Attorney Filing Declaratory Relief Action In Nature Of Interpleader Properly Exposed To Post-Judgment Enforcement Fees And Costs

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Attorney Did Contest Small Judgment Lien Found To Have Priority and May Have Tried To Subvert Lien Through Earlier Payoff From Judgment Creditor.     Don’t think that the equities of a situation—good or bad smell to things—don’t make a difference.  They did in Suojanen v. USA Specialized Services, Inc., Case No. G049555 (4th Dist.,

Appealability/Section 998: Nonfinal Fee Recovery With No Fixed Amount Awarded Affirmed, But Premature; 998 Expert Witness Award Reversed Because Uncertain If Plaintiff Prevailed Based On Unfixed Fee Award

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Section 998

Confusion Amok – But Fee and Expert Witness Fee Recovery Awaited Subsequent Determinations.     JMR Construction Corp. v. Environmental Assessment and Remediation Mgt., Inc., Case No. H039055 (6th Dist. Dec. 30, 2015) (partially published; fee and expert witness fee discussions not published) just goes to show you that fee and 998 recoveries will not have

Scroll to Top