Author name: Marc Alexander

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Law Offices Of Marc Grossman Case Now Published 4/2 DCA Decision on Trope Prohibition in CPRA Context Is On The Books!

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

      On June 27, 2015, we posted on Law Offices of Marc Grossman, a Fourth District, Division 2 unpublished decision which held the Trope prohibition for recovery of attorney’s fees was not applicable to a California Public Records Act (CPRA) petition.  We can now report that the decision was certified for publication on July […]

Common Fund/In The News . . . . District Judge Had Jurisdiction To Enforce Contract Between California Firm And Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee In MDL Phases

Cases: Common Fund, In The News

  7% Payment For Use Of Steering Committee’s Work Product Was Proper, Covering Both California State Cases And Other Federal Cases.      In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Product Liab. Litig., No. 14-2980 (3d Cir. July 2, 2015) (not precedential) involved a dispute between California firm Girardi Keese (GK) and an MDL Plaintiffs’ Steering

Private Attorney General: Successful CEQA Plaintiff Improperly Denied Fees Against Public Entity, But Properly Denied Against Private Party

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Future Pecuniary Interest Was Too Speculative To Disqualify Successful CEQA Petitioner.      In Ocean View School Dist. v. City of Huntington Beach, Case No. G049545 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 24, 2015) (unpublished), petitioner OVSD sought decertification of a final environmental impact report (FEIR) approved by Huntington Beach (City) for a mixed-use “conceptual” project

Class Action: Golba Decision Now Published

Cases: Class Actions

  4/3 DCA Decision Discussed Out-Of-State Counsel Denied Fee Recovery For Never Getting Pro Hac Vice Admittance.     On July 14, 2015, we posted on Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. G049611, a 4th Dist., Division 3 decision which was unpublished at the time.  It decided that out-of-state class counsel was properly denied

Class Action: Undisclosed Supplemental Fee Arrangement In Settled Class Action Is Nixed By San Francisco County Superior Court Judge

Cases: Class Actions

  $5.5 Million Side Deal, Done Without Court Approval, Derailed.     Judge Mary E. Wiss of the San Francisco County Superior Court, in a July 16, 2015 order in Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Case No. CGC-11-509502, derailed a $5.5 million “supplemental” fee arrangement between one class law firm, its clients, and Wells Fargo

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Substantiation Of Fees: Looks Like Prevailing General Contractor Garnered Over $403,000 In Attorney’s Fees/Expenses For Obtaining Compensatory Damages Of Around $141,467.21

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Fee Award On Remand From Prior Appeal.     Barham Construction, Inc. v. City of Riverbank, Case Nos. F068373/F068914 (5th Dist. July 21, 2015) (unpublished) involved a situation where a general contractor for a skate project in Riverbank won a prior trial, with City being held responsible for

Private Attorney General: Willard Decision Certified For Publication

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Candidacy Mis-description Dispute Involved One’s Personal Interests.     On July 3, 2015, we posted on Willard v. Kelley, where the Fourth District, Division 3 in an unpublished decision affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees to a party in a candidacy mis-description dispute, ultimately determining that the party’s personal interest was not transcended for CCP

Discovery, Sanctions, Substantiation Of Fees: $2.7 Million In Discovery Sanctions Against Goodyear And Its Attorneys In Tire Failure Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  No Precise Linkage Between Harm and Compensatory Sanctions Required, Where Discovery Abuse Was Frequent Or Severe.     This next case is a reminder of how one must be candid in discovery, with contrary positions and obstructionist litigation tactics possibly leading to large monetary sanctions against both client and client’s attorneys (as well as non-monetary

Scroll to Top