Author name: Marc Alexander

Settlement/Poof!: Court Of Appeal Refuses To Enforce Settlement Because Email Failed Electronic Signature Test–And Attorney’s Fees Go Poof!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Settlement

Dot I’s and Cross T’s When Relying On An Electronic Signature!      In J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair, Case Nos. A140232, A141228 (1/2 Dec. 30, 2014) (Kline, Richman, Stewart), the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, because email and voicemail messages failed to […]

Section 1717/Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $340,567.55 Fees/Costs Award Under Civil Code Section 1717 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Multiple Challenges To Entitlement/Fee Amount Rejected Upon Review.      In Palmer v. Patel, Case No. H039336 (6th Dist. Dec. 30, 2014) (unpublished), parties got involved in a brouhaha over a vacation home even though a real estate purchase agreement and deed of trust had broad attorney’s fees clauses. Plaintiffs lost the case and were

Private Attorney General: $119,313.50 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award Goes POOF! On Appeal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Reason Was That Plaintiff Was Not Successful Party As A Matter Of Law Under Catalyst Theory.      Plaintiff in Washoe Meadows Community v. Cal. Dept. of Recreation, Case No. A139197 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 30, 2014) (unpublished) obtained an attorney’s fees award of $119,313.50 in a CEQA mandate proceeding involving a challenge to

Requests for Admissions: Lower Court Denial Of “Costs of Proof” Sanctions For RFA Denials Reversed And Affirmed In Various Respects

Cases: Requests for Admission

  Unless Truly Conflicting Proof Presented To Justify Denials, Then Costs Of Proof Sanctions In Play Where Nothing Supporting Certain Blanket Denials.      Usually, the abuse of discretion standard is difficult to surmount. However, where the proof only admits of one reasonable conclusion, don’t be surprised by some reversals depending upon the circumstances, as Crowe

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees: Vast Portion Of $2.1 Million Fee Award Under Unruh Act/Interrelated Tort Claims Affirmed On Appeal Where Total Recovery Was $1.654 Million

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  One Reversal Involved A Non-Class Action Percentage Of Recovery Methodology Found Flawed By The Appellate Court, So Apportionment Re-Do On One Issue Was Ordered.      Paletz v. Adaya, Case No. B247184 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 29, 2014) (unpublished) involved bad facts, resulting in a substantial jury verdict and substantial fees, most of which

Sanctions: Homeowner Eventually Losing Residential Foreclosure Challenge Also Correctly Denied Sanctions Under CCP Section 128.7

Cases: Sanctions

  False Statement By Lender’s Defense Counsel Occurred in Superseded Pleading.      In Tyshkevich v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Case No. C070764 (3d Dist. Dec. 26, 2014) (unpublished), homeowner lost both a challenge to a residential foreclosure and a request for sanctions against lender’s defense counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. The lender’s

In The News . . . . Large American U.S. Firm Bonuses On The Rise This Year

In The News

  Year-End Bonuses See Some Dramatic Rises For 2014.      As reported in the December 20, 2014 issue of The Economist, starting salaries for first year associates at large American law firms has been stuck at $160,000/year since 2007. However, in the waning months of 2014, year-end bonuses have dramatically risen for associate attorneys—despite being

Intellectual Property/Undertaking: District Courts Diverge On Whether To Order Bondings For Costs/Fees Under CCP § 1030 In Patent And Copyright Cases

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Undertaking

  Undertakings Ordered in Copyright Cases, But Denied in Patent Cases.      Charlene M. Morrow and Brian E. Lahti of Fenwick & West LLP have written an interesting article in the October 31, 2014 issue of BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 88 PTCJ 1705.      In this article, they explore how district courts in

Billing Record Substantiation: N.D. Cal. Federal District Judge Slashes Fee Request 20% Due To Block Billing

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation

  Further Reduction Made For Excessive Time/Inefficiencies, As Well As Bloated “Fees On Fees” Request.      Although arising under Delaware law, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick reduced an attorney’s fees request of $ 3.56 million where the prevailing party did so on a summary judgment motion and its attorneys utilized block billing in fee

Scroll to Top