Author name: Marc Alexander

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Intervening Insurer Not Responsible For Fees To Prevailing Party, While Litigant Losing Alter Ego Arguments Was Responsible For Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Also Did Not Err By Awarding Insurer Rate Fees To A Prevailing Party, Apportioning Out Noncompensable Fees.                Yee v. Weinberg, Case No. A163850 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 5, 2024) (unpublished) is a situation where a plaintiff landlord prevailed against defendant tenant, with landlord receiving some fees (but none against […]

Costs, Fees On Fees, Lodestar: Fee Award Reversed Because Unavailability Of Out-Of-Venue Counsel Should Have Been Considered, 30% Reduction For Pre-Trial Settlement Efforts Was Unwarranted, And Fees On Fees For Reply Work Should Have Been Considered

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fees on Fees, Cases: Lodestar

However, Denial Of Expert Witness Fees As Costs For Non-Court Ordered Witness Was No Abuse Of Discretion.                In California Open Lands v. Butte County Dept. of Public Works, Case No. C097297 (3d Dist. Mar. 4, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff reached a settlement with a county government in a conservation easement case with Clean Air Act

Homeowner Associations: Attorney’s Fees Are Not Fiduciary Duty Breach Tort Damages And $1.328 Million Fee Award Against Individual Directors Under Civil Code Section 5975 Reversed As A Matter Of Law.

Cases: Homeowner Associations

Section 5975 Fees Only Awardable Against Nonprevailing HOA.                In Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes, Case No. B308382 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 1, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion not published), plaintiff homeowner won a declaratory relief action based on a dispute over tree-trimming covenants in certain recorded Declarations, with

Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Lower Court’s Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Plaintiffs In CC&R Flag Pole Placement Dispute Was An Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Judicial Estoppel Applied And Plaintiffs Were The Unqualified Winners.                In Rowan v. Hilliard, Case No. D081687 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 29, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed against defendants/cross-complainants in a flag pole placement dispute under CC&Rs, which had a fees clause giving the lower court the authority (“shall have the authority”) to award reasonable

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Fee Award For Hospital Affirmed And Fee Award For Medical Staff Reversed In Peer Review Dispute Involving Doctor’s Suspension Of Hospital Privileges

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Shifting Centered On Business & Professions Code Section 809.9.                One of the interesting aspects of posting on California fee decisions is we get to explore some special fee shifting statutes.  Business and Professions Code section 809.9 is a specialized one allowing for substantially prevailing party fees to the winner in a peer review

Arbitration: Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay Arbitration Fees To JAMS Under CCP § 1281.98 Meant Litigation For The Parties, With JAMS Having No Power To Extend The Deadline Unless All Parties Consent

Cases: Arbitration

Dissent Believed That The FAA Preempted Section 1281.98.             In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, Case No. B327524 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 27, 2024) (published), by a 2-1 margin, the majority determined that employer forfeited the ability to arbitrate by not paying arbitration fees and expenses as required under CCP § 1281.98, even though JAMS

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Because Section 998 Does Apply To Lemon Law Cases, Fee/Costs Award Had To Be Reduced By Post-Fees Covered By Defense 998 Offer

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

However, Majority And Dissenting Justices Disagreed On Whether Section 998 Applied To A Litigation Ended Through A Settlement.             Ayers v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B315884 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 27, 2024) (published) is an interesting decision involving the interplay between the Song-Beverly Act “lemon law” fee/costs shifting provisions and pretrial offers under

Reasonableness Of Fees: In IDEA Case, District Court Did Award Fees, Albeit Reduced—Our First Artificial Intelligence Post!

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

District Judge Disregarded AI Computation On Hourly Rates.             Okay, everyone following our blog, we have our first Artificial Intelligence (AI) case on a fee motion.             In J.G. v. New York City Dept. of Education, No. 23 Civ. 949 (PAE), S.D.N.Y. (Doc. 32, 2/22/2024), the district court was considering a fee request to a

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Lower Court Erroneously Denied Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiff Who Obtained A Majority Of What She Wanted In A Loan Agreement Case With A Fees Clause Only Covering A Judicial Foreclosure Case

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Under Civil Code Section 1717, Lack of Recital Saying Contract Was Negotiated/Executed With Counsel Representation Kept The Clause From Applying Narrowly, With The Matter Remanded For Purposes Of Determining If Plaintiff Was The Prevailing Party For Fees Even Though Plaintiff Did Not Pursue Routine Costs Recovery.             In Andrade v. Western Riverside Council of Governments,

Scroll to Top