Author name: Marc Alexander

Civil Rights/Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Winning Mandate In Riverside County Termination Case Gets $99,665 In Fees Evaporated On Appeal

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

  Neither CCP § 1021.5 Nor 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Supported Fee Award.      In Rivera v. County of Riverside, Case No. E055956 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained mandate for an administrative hearing based on her termination by the County of Riverside under unusual factual circumstances, eventually leading to a […]

Requests For Admission: Lower Court Properly Denied $123,196.58 Costs Of Proof Sanctions For RFA Denial In Common Boundary Survey Dispute

Cases: Requests for Admission

  RFA Denial Was on Legal Accuracy of Survey, And On A Non-Key Issue.      Litigants in Bloxham v. Saldinger, Case No. H038040 (6th Dist. Aug. 1, 2014) (published) were involved in a common boundary line dispute, involving surveys going back as far as 1858, as well as consideration of such arcane doctrines as obliterated

In The News . . . . U.S. Law Schools With Top Number Of Applications

Uncategorized

  Although law school applications are down 37% from 2010, an on-line posted article in the AJA Journal indicates no problem for these U.S. law schools, ranked in order of most applications received: 1) Georgetown University, 7,257 applications 2) University of Virginia, 6,048 applications 3) George Washington University (DC), 6,005 applications 4) University of California

Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Against Attorney Could Not Be Entertained Where Client Alone Appealed

Cases: Sanctions

  No “Aggrieved Party” Appealed.      Attorneys in complex litigation involving a family corporation were assessed with CCP § 128.7 sanctions for filing a frivolous summary judgment motion on defendant’s behalf. Although the sanctions were originally requested against defendant and the law firm, only the law firm got hit with sanctions, and only the defendant

Family Law: $14,872 271 Sanctions Award To Wife No Abuse Of Discretion Where Husband Violated Restraining Order Regarding Transfer Of Assets

Cases: Family Law

  Husband Did Not Show He Could Not Pay Sanctions Award.      After 25 years of marriage, husband got hit with a Family Code section 271 sanctions order of $14,872 in fees/expended incurred by ex-wife mainly based on encumbering property without consent after filing of the restraining order going into effect after the filing of

Allocation/Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: $73,160 Fee And $3,029.40 Costs Award Against Losing Civil Rights Plaintiff In Favor Of L.A. County Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  30% Reduction of Fee and Costs Request Deemed Reasonable.      In Villafana v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B246866 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 30, 2014) (unpublished), civil rights plaintiff bringing FEHA/federal civil rights/California Family Rights Act/public policy violation claims lost a summary judgment to L.A. County based on the statute of limitations

Arbitration/Prevailing Party/Retainer Agreements: Law Firm Winning Malpractice Phase Of Arbitration And Judicial Confirmation Award Proceedings Entitled To Recovery Of Over $2.19 Million In Attorney’s Fees Against Sophisticated Former Client Defenda

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Arbitration Fee Clause Broad Enough to Encompass Torts, and Trope Waiver Clause Enforced For Judicial Confirmation Recovery Fees By Law Firm Personnel.      This next 2-1 decision, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan v. Kurtin, Case No. B250245 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jul. 28, 2014) (unpublished), is an interesting one involving affirmance of an arbitration

Prevailing Party: HOA Attorney Not Entitled To Costs And Fees In Improper Lien Assessment Charge Dispute

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Other Side Did Obtain a $53,000 Judgment, So Partial Wins and Losses Sustained No Prevailing Party Lower Court Determination.      In Fed. Nat. Mortg. Assn. v. Rothman, Case No. G048156 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jul. 28, 2014) (unpublished), HOA attorney/litigant filed a costs memorandum and fees motion claiming he was the winning party in

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Prevailing In Brokerage Commission Dispute Entitled To Substantial Fee Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  $520,182.25 Is the Affirmed Fee Award.       In American Diversified Properties, Inc. v. RE/EX Valencia, Inc., Case No. B246501 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 25, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a brokerage commission dispute to two co-defendants, with the lower court awarding the defendants (one of which was a cross-complainant) $520,182.25 in fees under a

Civil Rights: Winning Plaintiffs Obtain $717,642.74 In Fees And $106,852.20 In Costs After Winning $302,044.80 In State Pendent Claim Related To Civil Rights Claim Garnering Only $1

Cases: Civil Rights

  District Judge Surveys Law on Awarding Fees to Winning Civil Rights Plaintiff Really Prevailing Under State Pendent Claims.      Willis v. City of Fresno, Case No. 1:09-CV-01766-BAM (E.D. Cal., Doc. No. 316 7/17/14) is an interesting decision granting attorney’s fees and costs to counsel representing prevailing civil rights plaintiffs, although the plaintiffs got $1

Scroll to Top