Author name: Marc Alexander

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees: $362,000 In Fee Recovery To Contractor Stepping Into Developers Shoes And Guarantors For Winning Against Construction Lender Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Bank’s Failure to Contest Fee Entitlement Meant Only Amount of Fees At Issue—With Reasonableness And Apportionment Issues Left to Trial Court Discretion.      California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti, Case No. E053187 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 9, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is a construction lender liability case with fairly draconian facts […]

Reasonableness Of Fees/SLAPP: Winning SLAPP Defendants’ $138,972 Combined Fee Award Affirmed As Reasonable On Appeal

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

  Also, CCP § 177.5 $1,000 Sanctions Award Reviewable Only By Writ.      In Shalant v. Mackston, Case No. B250208 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 8, 2014) (unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion—the merits of which were never appealed—and plaintiff suffered a combined adverse fee award of $138,972 under the mandatory SLAPP fee-shifting statute. One

Probate: Daughter Trust Beneficiary Hit With $204,420.32 Attorney Fee Tab Aggregately Run Up By Sibling Beneficiaries In Defending Forfeiture/Surcharge Petition Found To Be In Bad Faith

Cases: Probate

  Equitable Powers of Probate Court Provided the Fee Entitlement Ground.      In Zankich v. Zuckerman, Case No. B247274 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 5, 2014) (unpublished), a petition seeking forfeiture and surcharge was filed by one daughter beneficiary against the trust distribution interests of her sibling beneficiaries, all involving deceased mother’s trust and alleging

Section 998: Personal Injury Plaintiff Entitled To 998 Costs When Verdict Against 998 Defendant Offeree Beat Plaintiff’s 998 Offer

Cases: Section 998

  Not Unreasonable to Make Offer to One Defendant, At Insurance Policy Limit, to Detriment of Co-Defendant.      Plaintiff in Arias v. McDaris, Case No. B254163 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 5, 2014) (unpublished) was a personal injury claimant suing two defendants, a car driver and the one alleged to have negligently entrusted the car

Appealability: Stipulation Allowing For Further Litigation By Parties Meant Two Other Interveners Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appealability

  No Appealable Order, Collateral Order Exception Did Not Apply, And Appellate Court Not Willing To Treat As Writ Petition.      Sierra Club and Carmel River Steelhead Association obviously were upset when a lower court denied their private attorney general fee request to recoup $256,934 in fees under CCP § 1021.5.      However, that denial

In The News . . . . Attorney’s Fees Not Awarded In Trademark And Patent Infringement Cases Under “Exceptional” Circumstance Statutes

In The News

  Neurovision/NuVasive Trademark Infringement Action.       U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer (C.D. Cal.) recently denied Neutrovision Medical Products’ request for attorney’s fees against NuVasive, Inc. under the trademark “exceptional” circumstance Lanham Act fee-shifting statute. Neutrovision won a $300 million verdict infringement verdict, but District Judge Fischer believed NuVasive had potentially meritorious defenses and would not

Appeal Sanctions/Attorney Lien/SLAPP: Defendants Trying To “SLAPP” In Fee Dispute Involving Attorney Lien Impact Were Correctly Not Allowed SLAPP Relief

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: SLAPP

  However, Winning Plaintiff Attorney Negotiating Personal Injury Settlement Not Entitled to SLAPP Fee-Shifting Fees or Frivolous Appeal Sanctions.      Well, we have an appellate court decision saying fees disputes do not rise to constitutional protected activity under the SLAPP statute. We are not offended, because these usually are more in the nature of private

Deadlines: Failure To File Noticed Motion Separate From Costs Memorandum Resulted In Denial Of Appellate Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Deadlines

  Ignorance of the Law Was No CCP § 473 Excuse.      Deadlines and procedural technicalities can be a real trap for all lawyers, and can especially be gnarly when requesting attorney’s fees. Van Loon v. Winchester-Wesselink, LLC, Case No. E058826 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 3, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates this well. There, plaintiffs filed

Arbitration/Section 1717: Arbitrator Who Applies Statutory Definition of “Prevailing Party” To Award Fees Rather Than Contractual Definition Does Not Exceed His Powers

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717

Court Does Not Decide Whether Contractual Provision Limiting Arbitrator’s Power To Apply Definition Of “Prevailing Party” Other Than Found In Agreement Would Be Unenforceable As Violative Of Public Policy.      Does an arbitrator who applies the statutory definition of “prevailing party” found in Civil Code Section 1717(b)(1), rather than than the definition the parties contractually

Scroll to Top