Author name: Marc Alexander

In The News . . . . Improving Economy Means Bigger Bonuses For Large New York Firm Associates, More Women Leading Law Firms, And More In-House Corporate Work Staying “In-House”

In The News

       Co-contributor Mike’s father-in-law Tom Basehart has provided his stash of news articles with tidbits of interest for our readers. Here is a synopsis of the articles he pulled, with some interesting trends—some in line with an improving economy and another not so much with respect to in-house corporate legal business. Three Elite New […]

In The News . . . . Seventh Circuit Reverses Nearly $2 Million Fee Award Where Class Distributions Only Came To $865,284

Cases: Class Actions, In The News

  Circuit Judge Posner Disturbed With Valuation, Reversion (“Kicker”) Clauses, And Convoluted Claim Forms.      Circuit Judge Posner, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, authored an opinion in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., Nos. 14-1198 et seq. (7th Cir. Nov. 19, 2014) in which a class action fee award was scuttled because it was too high—finding

Deadlines/Paralegals: Prevailing Party Under Brown Act And Political Reform Act Fee-Shifting Statutes Had Fees And Paralegal Fees Stricken From Costs Award

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Paralegal Time

    Reason Was Failure to File a Noticed Motion or Submit Costs Memo With an Affidavit.        Arth v. Raine, Case No. C071303 (3d Dist. Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished) is a somber reminder to follow Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 dictates when seeking attorney’s and paralegal fees under statutory fee-shifting provisions.     

Section 1717/Settlement: $82,174.25 Fee Award To Successors/Assigns Under Settlement Agreement Sustained Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Trial Court Based It On Wrong Document, But Settlement Agreement Confirmed the Result.      In Jayaweera v. Lansberg, Case No. D065800 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished), a trial court awarded a certain side prevailing in an easement dispute $82,174.25 in attorney’s fees under a Declaration of Restrictions (easement), a ruling challenged

Employment: $9.267.64 Costs Award And $122,378 Fee Award To Winning Employee Affirmed Even Though Compensatory Recovery Was Only $58,977.03

Cases: Employment

  Labor Code Section 218.5 Justified Fee Recovery.      In Hines v. Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc., Case No. G04912 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished), employee won a compensatory verdict of $58,977.03 against a solar panel employer for failure to pay certain commissions/overages owed under the employment relationship. Following the verdict, the

Probate: Niece Successfully Obtaining Appointment of Independent Conservator For Person Of Conservatee Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Probate Code Section 2640.1

Cases: Probate

  Niece Not Entitled to Common Fund Recovery, However Maybe Indirect Recovery Appropriate Under Probate Code Section 2642, But That Section Was Never Raised.      Conservatorship of Mazzocco, Case No. E057485 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished) involved some dueling conservatorship petitions for a consevatee having millions in assets even though he had

Costs/Special Fee Shifting Statute: $275,825 Fee Award And $26,034.71 Cost Award Affirmed In Case Where Plaintiff Recovered Against Convicted Molestation Felon

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Plaintiff Did Prevail And Amounts of Awards No Abuse of Discretion.      In Oiye v. Fox, Case No. H038410 (6th Dist. Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff won about a $500,000 verdict against a defendant who was alleged to molest her, with defendant pleading no contest to two lewd counts (being sentenced to 6 years

In The News . . . . E.D. Pa. Judge Awards Wage/Hour Attorneys 20% Of Settlement Fund, While D. Mass. Judge Awards Neurotin Class Action Counsel 28% Percentage Of Recovery In Class Action Case

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar

  Fee Award in TD Bank Wage/Hour Class Action.      In Keller v. TD Bank, N.A., Civ. Action No. 12-5045 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 4, 2014 Order), U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo awarded class action counsel exactly what they wanted–$1.2 million in fees out of a $6 million settlement fund in the settlement of a wage/hour

Prevailing Party/Section 998/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees/Celebrities: $125,000 Fee Award To Landlord Under Section 1717 Affirmed, Rejecting Defense Challenges To 998 Rejection Arguments

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  However, “Prevailing” Landlord Did Not Garner 998 Postoffer Expert Fees or Get More Fees, In Case Implicitly Founded “Over Litigated” By Lower Court—With Landlord Trying To Get $365,000-$387,000 In Fees.      If you have followed us over the years (we thank you for those that have, hoping we have provided some insights, or welcome

Scroll to Top