Author name: Marc Alexander

Allocation/Prevailing Party/Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Two Tenants Recovering Fees Of $184,330.40 In Tenant Ordinance Dispute Keep Them On Appeal Against Landlord Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fee Award Did Not Have To Be Proportional To $45,441 Jury Verdict Recovery.      In Ochoa v. San Juan, Case Nos. A130993/A131051 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 9, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court considered the review of a $184,330.40 to two tenants under a tenant ordinance/ local proposition with prevailing party provisions even though […]

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: LLC Member Fee Recovery Of Around $327,000 In Fees Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Apportionment and Mitigation Arguments Rejected By Reviewing Court.      Hill v. Degery, Case No. H038874 (6th Dist. June 9, 2014) (published) is a situation where, after an earlier appeal reversing a fee denial, an LLC member was granted fees based on its statutory immunity defense that it could not be liable unless its conduct

Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: $224,675.71 Additional Fee Award In FEHA Case Affirmed Under Abuse Of Discretion Standard

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  FEHA Plaintiff’s Counsel Offered 5% Duplication Discount and Trial Court Reduced Another 60% From Requested Amounts—Nothing More Needed.      Vargas v. Martinez-Senftner Law Firm, P.C., Case No. C069218 (3d Dist. June 5, 2014) (unpublished) was a losing defense appeal of a second lower court award of an additional $224,675.71 in fees to a winning

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: After 15 Years Of Controversy, Appellate Court Affirms Decision That Defendant/Cross-Complainant Did Not Prevail For Purposes of 1717 Fee Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Both Sides Partially Succeeded, So Lower Court’s Ruling Was No Abuse of Discretion.      The next case illustrates how appellate courts will defer to the lower court’s determination that there was no prevailing party for Civil Code section 1717 fee recovery unless there was a truly unqualified winner, with the result climaxing an apparent

Class Action: $1 Million In Class Counsel Fees Affirmed By Majority Under Lodestar And Percentage Of Recovery Methods

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar

  Dissenting Judge Concerned About Claim Response Rates and Clear Sailing/Reverter Clauses.      Laguna v. Singh, Case No. 12-55479 (9th Cir. June 3, 2014) (published) was a case which shows the divergent views of federal jurists on class action settlements where the common fund value is not of a fully liquidated nature.      The majority

Probate: Disallowance Of Some Attorney’s Fees Affirmed, Except Mathematical Error Corrected By Appellate Court

Cases: Probate

  Trustee Was Reasonable in Fighting Beneficiaries’ Accounting Challenges, Though, Such That Fees Reimbursed To Beneficiaries Had To Be Reversed and Retried.      In the probate area, benefit to a trust is what justifies payment of attorney’s fees incurred by the trustee. (Donahue v. Donahue, 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 268 (2010).) Beneficiaries, in accounting challenges, usually

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Company’s Request For Attorney’s Fees Under California Public Records Act Properly Denied Where Company Did Not Prevail

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  County Produced Documents It Promised to Produce, So Company Was Not a Catalyst Behind Production.      In HR Management Corp., Inc. v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. A139841 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 29, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff company losing a services contract to two other businesses filed a request under the California Public

In The News . . . . Delaware Supreme Court Endorses Corporate Bylaw Shifting Fees To Non-Prevailing Shareholders In Unsuccessful Intracorporate Litigation

In The News

  May Have Profound Impact for Delaware Corporations and Shareholder Litigation Fee-Shifting.       Though occurring in a Delaware non-stock corporation context, the Delaware Supreme Court in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund (German Tennis Federation), Del. Sup. Ct. Case No. 534, 2013 (May 8, 2014) addressed whether Delaware corporations can adopt bylaws requiring shareholders/LLC

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: $125,000 Fee Recovery By Plaintiff On Rescission Claim Was “On The Contract” Under Section 1717

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

  However, Fee Recovery Modified to Allow Recovery Against Only Losing Signatory Defendant.      Plaintiff, after losing her investment in a security, sued various parties involved in its sales and packaging, with a jury ultimately awarding her $196,058.33 on fraud, fiduciary duty breach, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation claims. The lower court then awarded $125,000 (out

Scroll to Top