Author name: Marc Alexander

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Trial Judge Erroneously Denied Prevailing “Lemon Law” Consumer Fees Incurred For Subsequent Work Occurring After Consumer Rejected Initial Settlement Offer And For “Fees On Fees” Work

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

  Car Manufacturer’s First And Second Offers Were Different, And “Fees On Fees” Are Recoverable For Fee Motion Work Under Lemon Law Fee Shifting Provision.      California’s “lemon law” has a fee-shifting provision in favor of a prevailing consumer buyer. (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).) Actual time is recoverable under this provision, as long as it […]

Consumer Statutes, Deeds of Trust: Borrower Obtaining Preliminary Injunction Under “Dual Tracking” Prohibition Fee Shifting Statute Erroneously Denied Fees

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Deeds of Trust

  Civil Code Section 2924.12(i) Did Allow Fee Entitlement.      In response to the residential subprime meltdown, the California Legislature prohibited “dual tracking,” namely, recording a notice of trustee’s sale while simultaneously engaging in a loan modification process, with injunctive and damages relief being allowed depending on when the trustee’s sale notice was recorded. Injunctive

Costs: $3,043.08 In Statutory Routine Costs To One Prevailing Defendant Did Not Have To Be Apportioned Out For Expenses Relating To Other Non-Prevailing Defendant

Cases: Costs

  Two Defendants Had Distinct Defenses, Not Unified In Interest.      In Imbach v. Four Seasons Auto Group, Case No. E059228 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 11, 2015) (unpublished), one defendant prevailed on a nonsuit against plaintiff, while plaintiff won a $38,805 monetary award for wrongful car repossession against a separate, non-prevailing defendant. The prevailing

Reasonableness Of Fees, Substantiation Of Fees: $97,835.84 Fee Recovery To Indian Wells Affirmed In Ficus Tree Hedge Dispute Against Losing Private Nuisance Plaintiffs

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Attorney Declaration Suffices For Fee Substantiation At State Court Level, Surmounting Hearsay Objection Based On Business Records Exception.      In City of Indian Wells v. Lawellin, Case No. E060000 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 11, 2015) (unpublished), City of Indian Wells prevailed in a dispute over a local ordinance limiting height of hedges to

Costs, Request For Admissions: Trial Court Properly Denied RFA Cost-Of-Sanctions Request But Erroneously Refused To Award Governmental Entity Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Requests for Admission

  Costs Request Was Not Timely Served, Such That $13,512.81 Went To Governmental Entity On Appeal—With Rest Of The Results Sustained.      Downey Real Estate Holding, LLC v. L.A. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Case Nos. B244647/B247931 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 9, 2015) (unpublished) is a situation where an inverse condemnation plaintiff suffered a dismissal of

Probate: Litigant’s Failure To Challenge Order Fixing Attorney Compensation Timely Was Fatal, With Appeal Being Dismissed

Cases: Probate

  Probate Code Section 1304 Makes These Orders Immediately Appealable, Not Interlocutory Orders Appealable From A Final Judgment.       For probate practitioners, Gonzalez v. Thomas, Case No. B250492 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 5, 2015) (unpublished) is a good refresher course on appeal deadlines for Probate Code cases involving the “fixing” of attorney fee compensation.

Landlord/Tenant, Postjudgment Enforcement, Section 998: Two Landlords Do Not Do Well In Fee Proceedings

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

  Postjudgment Enforcement—Harris v. Otttovich, Case Nos. A139146 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 2, 2015) (unpublished).      In this one, former landlords lost a wrongful eviction suit and the lower court awarded tenant $48,000 in postjudgment collection/enforcement fees under CCP § 685.040. Landlords argued that, because there was no contract with a fees

Class Action: $1.125 Million Fee Recovery To Class Counsel In Labor Class Action Reversed Based On Actual Claims Distribution Percentage And Failure To Allow Class Objections Prior To Fee Motion Filing Deadline

Cases: Class Actions

  Ninth Circuit Did Not Preclude Settlement Might Be Fair, But Value And Due Process Concerns Triggered A “Relook.”      The Ninth Circuit, in Bedolla v. Labor Ready Southwest, Inc., Nos. 13-5506 et al. (9th Cir. June 2, 2015) (published), denied an objector’s related motion to intervene (four years into the litigation) but did reverse

Scroll to Top