Author name: Marc Alexander

Interest, Judgment Enforcement: Where Fee Award Had Been Paid Prior To Entry Of Judgment Of Dismissal Based On CCP Section 998 Acceptance In Lemon Law Case, Plaintiff Not Entitled To Postjudgment Interest On Fee Award

Cases: Interest, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Plaintiff’s Attempt To Depose Hyundai CEO For $462.50 Did Not Impress Appellate Court, Much Less Hyundai’s Emergency Stay Request.      We knew that the decision in Hyundai Motor America v. Superior Court, Case No. G051279 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 20, 2015) (published) was going to be interesting, because it kicked off with this […]

Section 1717, Non-signatories, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Nonsignatory Defendant Entitled To Fee Recovery Based On Statute Which Would Have Made Him Personally Liable For Signatory’s Obligations

Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Impact of Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Liability Considered By Appellate Panel.        Plaintiff (produce seller) sued a restaurant (Jack’s La Jolla) and its controlling officer Berkley to recover monies owed for the produce, claiming that Berkley had signed a guaranty and Berkley was subject to personal liability for restaurant’s contractual obligations (under an

In The News . . . . 2015 BTI Consulting Survey Shows Corporate Clients Are Switching Core Counsel A Lot, Delaware Chancery Court Decides Nonreciprocal By-Law Fee-Shifting Provision Does Not Apply To Former Shareholder, And Many Southern California Law Sch

In The News

  BTI Consulting Survey Shows Corporate Clients Becoming More Demanding.      The “BTI Litigation Outlook 2015,” published by BTI Consulting, reports that more than 60% of corporate clients have replaced one of their primary, core law firms in the past 18 months—a 7 year high as far as this statistic is concerned. However, the same

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Partial and “Mixed” Results By Plaintiffs And Cross-Complainants In Rental Burglary Dispute Supported Trial Court’s Denial Of Contractual Fees To Either Side

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

  No Clear Winner Emerged In This One.      Where litigants in a case involving both a complaint and cross-complaint win only some claims (but with a broad rental agreement fees clause), the trial judge has discretion to determine whether any side “prevailed” based on a pragmatic inquiry. In Barrera v. Jensen, Case Nos. A136322/A137418

Cases Under Review, Employment, Prevailing Party, Section 998: Employer Accepting 998 $20,000 Offer From Former Employee In Wage/Hour Suit Assessed With $162,434.25 In Fees Under Labor Code Section 1194 Given 998 Offer Was Silent On Fees/Costs

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 998

  $202,882.50 In Fees Had Been Requested.      Portugal v. Sewer and Pipeline Contractor, Inc., Case No. B251730 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished) dealt with a former employee suing an employer for minimum wage/overtime compensation violations. Employee served a 998 offer, which did not allocate a $20,000 settlement offer among claims and

Civil Rights, Preemption: Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Denial Of Fees To Prevailing Defendant In California Disabled Persons Act/American with Disabilities Act Case

Cases: Preemption

  Panel Follows SoBreck, Choosing Not To Reconsider In Light of State Court Jankey Decision To The Contrary—Federal/State Conflict Exists Here.      In Kohler v. Presidio International, Inc., Case Nos. 13-55808/13-56217 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2015) (published), a disabled plaintiff challenged certain checkout counters, dressing room bench, and blocked aisles in an Eddie Bauer Outlet

Requests For Admissions: Cost-Of-Proof Sanctions Are Preempted By Federal “Damages” Limitation Relating To Cable Franchising Authority/Government Involvement

Cases: Requests for Admission

  RFA “Sanctions” Are Not True Sanctions, But More Akin To Damages Or Attorney’s Fees Precluded By Federal Statute.      City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC, Case No. B249094 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 18, 2015) (published) is an interesting case showing how costs-of-proof sanctions relating to California request for admissions are not

Lodestar, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Did Not Err By Awarding $19,176 Out Of Requested $231,098 In Fees Under Private Attorney General Statute To Prevailing Plaintiff

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Limited Success, Excessive Hourly Rates, and Excessive Work Led To Reductions, Although Court Disagrees With One Aspect Of Gorman Decision.      In Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. E059524 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished), a CEQA plaintiff, a non-profit opposing the development of an

­­­Civil Rights: $713,487 In Fees Awarded To Civil Rights Attorneys Successfully Challenging Los Angeles Ordinance Targeting Homeless Sleeping In Cars

Cases: Civil Rights

  Some Reductions In Requested Fees Made By U.S. District Judg­e.      In Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit invalidated, on constitutional grounds, a Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting use of cars as sleeping quarters, which the appeals court found was wrongfully targeted at the homeless.     

Scroll to Top