Author name: Marc Alexander

Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court’s Award Of $780,660.80 Out Of Requested $3,639,238.31 To FEHA Prevailing Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal, Where Plaintiff Recovered $663,983

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Lack of Detailed Reasoning Did Not Translate Into Abuse of Discretion, With Lower Court Having Plenty of Ammunition To Lower Requested Fees.      We know that the law in many fee-shifting areas says that awarded fees do not have to be proportional to the ultimate damages awarded, especially in civil rights or consumer areas. […]

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation: $291,355.62 Fee Recovery Affirmed On Appeal Because Broadly Worded Fees Clause Encompassed Quiet Title Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  No Apportionment Required Where Lower Court Could Conclude Efforts Intertwined With Covered Quiet Title Work.      In Hamilton Court, LLC v. East Olympic, L.P., Case No. B253511 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 12, 2015) (unpublished), defendants won $291,355.62 in attorney’s fees for trial and appellate work arising from a quiet title easement dispute. The

Civil Rights, Discovery, Prevailing Party: Disabled Plaintiff Dismissing Suit, Where Defendant Eliminated Architectural Barrier After Filing Suit, Was Properly Not Exposed To Fee Recovery Under California Disabled Persons Act Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Prevailing Party

  No One Prevailed in This Case, Both Trial and Appellate Courts Agreed, Under The Facts—But Prior Discovery Sanctions Award Did Survive.      The California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.) [DPA] does have a reciprocal fee-shifting provision in favor of a “prevailing party.” (Unlike the American with Disabilities Act [ADA], which

In The News . . . U.S. News And World Report Law School Ranking Recently Released

In The News

  UCI Get 30th Spot.                                   “The lowly anteater was immortalized at the Washington Zoo today when its statute was unveiled with appropriate ceremonies.”  1938.  Library of Congress. Recently, U.S. News and World Report released its ranking of U.S. law schools. Here they are:      (1) Yale University      (2) TIE – Harvard University

Appealability, SLAPP: Appeal Of Subsequent Fee Order, After SLAPP Grant Dismissing Action, Was Not Independently Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

  Only Appealable For Judgment Of Dismissal, Disagreeing With Third District Precedent.      Although we do not “weigh in” on many decisions, the issue in this case may be destined for California Supreme Court review—given that the jurisprudence is this area is conflicting or (at least) confusing.      The issue, boiled down, deals with appealability—when

Judgment Enforcement, SLAPP: Attorney’s Fees Incurred In Enforcement Of SLAPP Fee Recovery Are Recoverable Costs Under CCP § 685.040

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: SLAPP

  Plain Meaning of Statute and California Supreme Court Precedent So Dictated.      In a prior companion appeal, York v. Strong, Case No. G049512 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 10, 2015) (unpublished), one attorney appealed a SLAPP fee recovery of $21,840 assessed against him when another attorney “SLAPPed” his claim arising from competing claims to

Costs, Interest, Section 998: Prejudgment Interest Not Allowable On Costs Awards, 4/1 DCA Rules

Cases: Costs, Cases: Interest, Cases: Section 998

  Court of Appeal Did Affirm 998 Cost-Shifting As To Rejected 998 Offer.      In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corp., Case No. D064587 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 10, 2015) (partially published; prejudgment interest on costs discussion published/998 costs discussion not published), plaintiff won a substantial $1.271 damages award resulting from a rear end

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Failure To Seek Resolution Through Fish And Game Commission Prevented His Recovery Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Attempts to Settle With Others—But Not The Right Agency—Did Not Carry The Day.      Plaintiff filed a petition/complaint aimed to make the California Department of Fish and Wildlife reopen a Riverside County mirage trail in an ecological reserve. The defense demurred, which was sustained after new California legislation allowed the Fish and Game Commission

Section 998 Two-Fer: Defendants Entitled To 998 Cost-Shifting Where One Case Dismissed On Eve Of Trial And Another Nonsuited By Court

Cases: Section 998

  Gregory v. Abou-Samra, Case No. B253223 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 9, 2015) (Unpublished).      In this one, an assistant surgeon and employer of the primary surgeon (the latter settling out earlier) in a medical malpractice/fraud action sent plaintiff a CCP § 998 offer to waive all costs and malicious prosecution rights in exchange

Bankruptcy: Eleventh Circuit Rules That Petitioning Creditors Face Fee Exposure For Debtor’s Fees To Obtain Dismissal Of Involuntary Bankruptcy Case, To Obtain Appellate Affirmance Of Dismissal Order, And To Prosecute Bad Faith Damage Claims Against

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts

  11th Circuit Disagrees With 9th Circuit Ruling On Appellate Fee Availability For Dismissal Order.      Petitioning creditors in involuntary bankruptcy filings need to be aware that they can be subject to having to pay a debtor’s attorney’s fees for obtaining a dismissal of the case and also may have to pay bad faith damages

Scroll to Top