Author name: Marc Alexander

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Lower Court Erred In Denying Fees To A Parties’ Successor Under An Easement Settlement Agreement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fees Clause Did Encompass The Parties And Their Successors.             In Elusive 8307, LLC v. Canterman, Case No. B321096 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 3, 2024) (unpublished), prior owners of plaintiff's and defendant's adjacent properties entered into a settlement agreement granting an easement to plaintiff over a portion of defendant’s property.  Plaintiff lost an easement […]

Year In Review—2023

Year in Review

Year-End Wrap Up by Mike, Marc, and Shanna for Our Top 10 Decisions Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. Between 1980 and 2006. Library of Congress.             As we have done over the years, this blog provides its attorney’s fees/costs decisions for

Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $43,300 Fee Award Under California Public Records Act Statute Was Justified

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

. . . However, Fee Award Had To Be Reduced Down To $2,475 Based on Successful Defense § 988 Offer With Respect To Post-Offer Fees.             On appeal, you win some, you lose some, or the appellate court modifies judgments in varying amounts.  That third result is what occurred in Kinney v. City of Corona,

Private Attorney General: Although All Factors But Financial Benefits Were Clearly Met, Remand Was Justified To Relook at Whitley Cost/Benefit Analysis

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

If Analysis Was OK, Nothing Wrong With The Amount Of The $582,927 Award.             In Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp., Case No. D080295 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, 2023) (published), a trial court determined that a school district should pay private attorney general fees to charter schools for prevailing

Family Law: In Case Involving Criminal and SEC Insider Trading Proceedings, Appellate Court Determines That Ex-Husband’s Criminal Fees Constituted A Separate Debt But That Ex-Wife Was Liable For, As A Community Obligation, Some Of The SEC Insider Tradi

Cases: Family Law

Ex-Wife Had To Bear $931,000 In Fees, Much Lower Than Multi-Millions In Fees Incurred By Husband.             In re Marriage of Whitman, Case No. A157055 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 29, 2023) (partially published) involved ex-husband, a hedge fund founder, who incurred multi-millions in fees defending himself in a criminal insider trading case and a

Sanctions: $20,950 Discovery Sanctions Order Reversed Because Notice Of Motion Did Not Provide Due Process Notice To Defendant On The Basis For Such An Award

Cases: Sanctions

Form Does Matter When It Comes To Due Process.             In Timlick v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Case No. A165127 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 28, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded $20,950 in attorney’s fees as a discovery “sanction” even though plaintiff’s notice of motion did not identify the party against whom the discovery sanctions

Section 1717, Unlicensed Contractors: Unlicensed Contractor Obtaining $28,413 Contractual Fee Award Was Affirmed On Appeal Because It Was “On The Contract”

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Breadth Of Clause Led To The Result.             Co-contributor Mike had wished we had this decision many moons ago because the Second District, in an unpublished decision before the law had evolved, denied fees to an unlicensed contractor only seeking attorney’s fees, not construction compensation, in an arbitration proceeding.             In Rodgers v. HB Construction,

Private Attorney General: Nonprofit Defendant/Petitioner Obtaining Certification Of Fresno’s Measure P, In A Prior Appellate Reversal, Was Erroneously Denied § 1021.5 Fees As Against City

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Appellate Court Found That Private Attorney General Elements Were Met, Having Good Discussions Of The “Opposing Party,” Public Interest, And Interests of Justice Requirements.             In City of Fresno v. Fresno Building Healthy Communities, et al., Case Nos. F084662/F084666 (5th Dist. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished), a nonprofit defendant/petitioner Fresno Building Healthy Communities (FBHC) was denied

Appealability, SLAPP: Where SLAPP Cross-Defendant Did Not Eliminate All Cross-Claims And Received Less Than Requested SLAPP Fees, Fee Order Was Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

No Final Judgment Was Entered, And Collateral Order Doctrine Did Not Apply Because The Fee Order Did Not Order Payment Of Money By Partially Prevailing Cross-Defendant.             Cross-defendant in Delis v. Thorn, Case No. F084879 (5th Dist. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished) successfully SLAPP-ed 4 out of 5 cross-claims, moved for mandatory SLAPP fees, and was

Fee Clause Interpretation, Landlord/Tenant: Unlawful Detainer Action Did Not Arise Out Of Lease Fees Clause Given That Foreclosing Landlord Was Suing On A Statutory Basis For Obtaining Possession

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Unique Facts Of The Case Governed The Outcome.             The breadth or narrow nature of a contractual fees clause frequently can determine whether fee entitlement exists in a case.  De Witte Mortgage Investors Fund, LLC v. Carradine, Case No. B322747 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 19, 2023) (unpublished) vindicates that general principle.  Briefly stated, an

Scroll to Top