Author name: Marc Alexander

In The News: Epic Games Mounts Substantial Opposition To Apple’s $73.4 Million Fee Reimbursement Request For Apple’s Prevailing On Antitrust Claims And “Largely Uncontested” Contractual Breach Claims

In The News

Epic Games Claims Antitrust Fees Not Recoverable, Contractual Breach Claims Not Segregated So As To Be Recoverable, And “Fees On Fees” Not Recoverable Due To A Failure To Meet And Confer Before Filing Of The Substantial Fee Request.             In Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4-20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH (N.D. Cal., Doc. No 886, dated […]

Consumer Statutes: 2/4 DCA Reverses Trial Court’s Denial For Untimely Filing Of $119,470.98 Fees Motion Made By Prevailing Song-Beverly Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Trial Court Violated Rules Of Court, Rule 3.1702, By Shortening Deadline For Plaintiff To File His Attorney’s Fee Motion.             In Javidian v. Subaru of America, Case No. B322136 (2d Dist., Div. 4 February 16, 2024) (unpublished), Song-Beverly Plaintiff and Defendant reached a verbal settlement through mediation – with the parties agreeing the terms would

Consumer Statutes, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $264,440 In Attorney’s Fees Affirmed Against Bond Surety Defendant That Issued $50,000 Bond To Auto Dealer Who Used Fraudulent Tactics To Sell A Used Car To Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Was Unable to Collect Arbitration Award For Violations Of The Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Leading Her To Successfully Seek Summary Judgment Against Surety Under Veh. Code Section 11711 For Dealership’s Fraudulent Representation             In Gonzalez v. Hudson Insurance Co., Case Nos. D080166/D081686 (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 13, 2024) (unpublished), auto dealer sold a

Employment, Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Denial Of Labor Code Section 1194 Attorney Fees To Plaintiffs Who Incurred Post-Settlement Fees After Employer Breached The Settlement Agreement Reversed

Cases: Employment, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Because The Fees Provision In The Parties’ Settlement Agreement Did Not Address Fees Incurred Post-Settlement, Plaintiffs Were Entitled To Recovery Under Section 1194, But Only As To Fees Incurred In Conducting Discovery And Litigating To Trial, Not In Enforcing The Settlement Agreement.             In Lorta v. Bishop, Case No. G062166 (4th Dist., Div. 3

Private Attorney General: Fifth District Affirms Denial Of Section 1021.5 Fees To Plaintiff Who Had A $1,036,728 Financial Incentive And $456,935.25 In Legal Fees.

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Financial Incentive, That Far Outweighed The Incurred Costs Of Litigation, Warranted Denial Of Fees, And Plaintiff’s Analysis of Heron Bay Did Not Change That Factor.             Recovery of attorney fees under California’s private attorney general doctrine, codified at CCP § 1021.5, is reserved for “litigants and attorneys who step forward to engage in public

In The News . . . . Wells Fargo’s Legal Specialty Group Shows Big U.S. Law Firm Raised Billable Hourly Rates By 8.3% In 2023

In The News

That Factor, Combined With Holding Down Expenses, Led To More Profits Also.             Wells Fargo’s Legal Specialty Group, after surveying more than 130 U.S. big firms inclusive of 70 of the top 100 highest grossing U.S. firms, has reported that for 2023, these firms increased billable hourly rates by 8.3% over 2022 rates.  That led

Private Attorney General: Lower Court’s Denial Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Insured Did Vindicate Important Rights For California Insureds By Obtaining Published Affirmance Of An Insured’s Right To Videotape Insurer’s Participants In An EUO.             In Myasnyankin v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. A166946 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 30, 2024) (partially published), by a 2-1 vote, the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s determination

Interpleader: $71,777.80 Award To Nonjudicial Foreclosure Trustee Affirmed In Dispute Over Allocation Of Surplus Proceeds

Cases: Interpleader

Fee Entitlement Was Grounded In CCP § 386.6(a), With No Real Objection To The Fee Work.             In Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss v. Garau, Case No. B315960 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 30, 2024) (unpublished), non-judicial foreclosure trustee was awarded fees of $71,777.80 for bringing an interpleader action to resolve how excess surplus

Fee Clause Interpretation: Easement Language Only Referencing “Costs And Expenses Of Defense” Arising From The Easement Properly Found Not To Encompass Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Failure To Reference Attorney’s Fees Was Fatal To Fee Recovery.             Draftsmanship, draftsmanship, draftsmanship is the theme of the case we next post on, Smith v. Guillosson, Case No. B322717 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 30, 2024) (unpublished).              Plaintiff/cross-defendant prevailed on a patio and a walkway easement dispute where there were clauses indicating that

Scroll to Top