Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General: Billboard Company Successfully Challenging Illegal Settlement Agreement Relating To Digital Signs Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Company’s Financial Interest Outstripped Broader Public Interests, With Interesting Discussion Of Settlement Communications And Whitley Analysis Where No Monetary Award Sought By Fee Claimant.     Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles (CBS Outdoor LLC), Case No. B255050 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 8, 2015) (published) is a nice addition to CCP § […]

Arbitration: Case Illustrates That Fee Awards Can Be Substantial In Cases Involving Hefty Compensatory Damage Exposure

Cases: Arbitration

  $4,602,229.07 Fees And Costs Awarded By Arbitrator To Prevailing Party Winning $8 Million In Damages.      Co-contributor Marc, for the last few years, has been doing posts on his independent California Mediation and Arbitration blog. One thing that has resonated with co-contributor Mike is that the chosen arbitrator has lots of discretion in adjudging

In The News . . . . N.D. Cal. District Judge Lucy Koh Approves “No Poaching” Antitrust Class Action Settlement, Awarding $40,043,932.50 In Fees To Class Counsel

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, In The News

  Award Was Less Than Half Of $81 Million Request, Using Lodestar Billings Augmented By Positive 2.2 Multiplier.     On September 2, 2015, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California gave final approval to a class action settlement by high tech workers challenging on antitrust grounds a “no poaching” pact reached

Arbitration/Fee Clause Interpretation: Defendant Nonsignatories Prevailing In Arbitration, Which Arbitration Award Was Reversed In Earlier Appeal, Also Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories

  Reason Is That They Were Not Parties To The Purchase Agreement With A Fees Clause.     Defendants must have been very disappointed, after winning an arbitration award which was confirmed as a judgment and after winning attorney’s fees of $13,465 based on a fees clause in a purchase agreement involved in the arbitration, when

Sanctions: Failure To Attend Pretrial Issue Conference And File Pretrial Documents In California State Court Does Give Rise To Monetary Sanctions

Cases: Sanctions

  CCP § 575.2 So Allows, And Attorneys Beware That Sanctions Can Be Imposed Even Where Attorney Requested, But Was Denied, A Telephonic Appearance.     A former attorney failing to attend a mandatory pretrial issues conference and failing to file pretrial documents in Contra Costa Superior Court was hit with $6,178.26 in sanctions after the

Homeowner Associations: Nonprevailing Homeowner Liable For Prevailing HOA’s Pre-Litigation As Well As Litigation Fees And Costs Under CC&Rs/Davis-Sitrling Act

Cases: Homeowner Associations

  6th DCA Reverses Lower Court Denial Of Pre-Litigation Fees Based On ADR Statutory Provision.     In Rice v. Rancho Palm Grande Homeowners Assn., Case No. H038763 (6th Dist. Sept. 1, 2015) (unpublished), HOA defeated a homeowner’s assessment challenge under the governing CC&Rs and the Davis-Stirling Act fee-shifting provision (Civil Code former section 1354(c)).  The

Discovery/Family Law: 271 Sanctions Remanded For Reconsideration, But Bulk Of $123,087.50 Award Likely To Stand

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Family Law

  Playing Racial/Religion Discrimination Card And Attacking Opposing Counsel/The Court Did Not “Play” Well For Ex-Husband In Bitter Custody Dispute.     Well, this next case – Marriage of Salas and Farraj, Case No. B252053 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 1, 2015) (unpublished) – is a good lesson for family law practitioners to not play the

Probate, Requests For Admissions, Section 998: Lower Court Properly Denied Probate Estate’s Request For Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions And Routine Costs

Cases: Probate, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

  Section 998 Inapplicable In Probate Proceeding.     In a dispute involving the reformation of the terms of a “tontine” or survivalist partnership agreement, a probate estate was denied “costs-of-proof” attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 and had stricken its memorandum seeking post-remand costs based on Code of Civil Procedure section 998

Construction/Prevailing Party: Prompt Payment Statutes Do Allow Trial Court With Discretion To Determine If Any Party Actually “Prevailed”

Cases: Construction, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Although Fees Are Mandatory, Prevailing Party Determination Is Threshold Call For Trial Judge Under Prompt Payment Statutes.      James L. Harris Printing & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case No. C072169 (3d Dist. Aug. 27, 2015) (published) was dealing with fee-shifting provisions in some prompt payment statutes, specifically, Business and Professions Code

Cases Under Review/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Mountain Air Decision Pending For Review By California Supreme Court

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Split Opinion Decided Novation Defense Was “On The Contract” For Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717 Purposes.      On November 21, 2014, we posted on Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, 2014 WL 6488418 (Nov. 20, 2014) [1st Dist., Div. 2; majority opinion by Stewart, J. and dissenting opinion by Richman, J.], which held

Scroll to Top