Author name: Marc Alexander

Eminent Domain: Appellate Court Finds Flexibility Should Be Afforded To Trial Courts In Determining Which Statutory Demand/Offer Applies In Determining Whether Litigation Expenses Awarded To Property Owner

Cases: Eminent Domain

  Demand/Offer Consideration Not Limited To First Exchange Battle And Amount Of Compensation Actually Fixed Can Be The Beacon For Litigation Expense Decision In Bifurcated Trial—Bottom Line Is That Exchanges On Continued Trial Date Geared To Final Compensation Fix Can Be Used For Litigation Expense Determination In Bifurcated Trial Context.      People ex rel. CALTRANS […]

In The News . . . . Losing Plaintiff Ms. Pao Has A Decision To Make In Gender Discrimination Case Against Kleiner Venture Capital Firm – Drop Any Further Proceedings Or Face Close To $1 Million Fee/Costs Exposure

Cases: Section 998, In The News

  Case Illustrates the Potency of CCP § 998 Offer.      Lots of press coverage was had on Ms. Ellen Pao’s gender discrimination suit against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. She lost a jury verdict. However, that is hardly the end of the saga.      Apparently, much earlier, the defense had sent

SLAPP: Mandatory Fee-Shifting Statute In Favor Of Defense Does Not Require Consideration Of Financial Condition Of Losing Plaintiff

Cases: SLAPP

  Also, Fee Award Was Fairly Modest.      Plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion to the defense, which gave rise to the mandatory fee-shifting attorney’s fees statutory provision codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1). The trial court granted defendant $7,122.50 in fees and $806 in costs.      Plaintiff’s appeal in Darling v. Pentecost, Case

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: A Reader Takes Us To Task For Our Post On Willow Bend v. City of Holtville

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

A Reader Comments On Our Post About Willow Bend v. City of Holtville.      Above:  Neideffer Camp, Holtville, Imperial Valley.  Dorothea Lange, photographer.  Spring 1937.  Library of Congress.      Attorney Larry M. Hoffman of Vancouver, Washington, the advocate for appellants in Willow Bend v. City of Holtville, has written to us to comment about our

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Attorney’s Fees Award Associated With Domestic Violence Restraining Order Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Various Technical and Due Process Argument Rejected.      In Faton v. Ahmedo, Case No. D066119 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2015) (unpublished), the man in a domestic violence restraining order battle with a lady he dated for a period of time eventually lost the DVRO proceeding and then was ordered to pay attorney’s

In The News . . . . New York U.S. District Court Judge Awards Winning Plaintiff In Faruqi & Faruqi Sexual Harassment Suit Only About 16% Of Her Requested Attorney’s Fees And Costs

In The News

  All Faruqui’d Up? — Her $1.4 Million Request Dubbed “Patently Unreasonable.”      A lot of press was generated on the sexual harassment trial involving plaintiff Alexandra Marchuk against Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a securities boutique business. She eventually won a small verdict, and then moved to recover $1.4 million in attorney’s fees and costs.

Intellectual Property: Federal Circuit Vacates And Remands Attorney’s Fees Denial To Vizio In Patent Infringement Case

Cases: Intellectual Property

  District Judge’s Findings Of Certain Conduct Showed Case Likely Was Exceptional Under Patent Fee-Shifting Statute.      In Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 2014-1297 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2015), a district judge denied attorney’s fees and expert witness fees to defendant Vizio, Inc. in a patent infringement suit even though the federal judge

Off Topic: The Perils Of Blogging

Off Topics

Daily Journal Publishes Co-Contributor Marc’s April 17, 2015 Article On The Perils Of Blogging      Published by The Daily Journal on April 17, 2015, co-contributor Marc’s article on the legal perils of blogging will interest those of you who blog, or who are considering blogging. With the permission of the Daily Journal, we are making

Civil Rights, Substantiation: Attorney Billings To County Client Are Privileged Communications Exempt From Disclosure Under California Public Records Act Exemption

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Ruling May Have Implications On Substantiation Submitted In Support Of Fee Petitions In California.      In County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU), Case No. B257230 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 13, 2015) (published), the ACLU sought law firm billing records (mainly invoices) sent by counsel to Los Angeles County

Scroll to Top