Author name: Marc Alexander

Arbitration Under MFAA/Section 1717: $56,350 Fee Recovery Based Under MFAA And Section 1717 Affirmed In Favor Of Attorney Successfully Suing To Collect Receivable

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717

  Trope Prohibition Not in Play Because Suing Attorneys Used Independent Contractors, Not Associates, to Prosecute Case.      The opinion in Rothman v. Deshay, Case No. B245075 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 13, 2014) (unpublished) gives guidance on how attorneys prosecuting or defending themselves in litigation can use other attorneys and avoid the Trope prohibition […]

Family Law: $5,000 Temporary Support Fee Award No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Family Law

  Parties’ Spending on Fees During the Course Supported the Award.      Marriage of Grimm, Case No. B247643 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 12, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where an ex-husband, a struggling hospital engineer, was ordered to pay temporary needs-based attorney’s fees to his ex-wife, who had an English masters and no permanent

Employment: Lower Court’s Failure To Award Something To Successful Wage/Hour Plaintiff Under Mandatory Fee-Shifting Statute Required Reversal And Remand

Cases: Employment

  Total Fee Denial Reversed, Where Plaintiff Won Only $4,335.38 But Requested $241,931.15 In Fees.      Plaintiff won 2 out of 11 counts in a discrimination/failure to accommodate/wage-hour lawsuit, recovering $4,335.15 on unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wage claims. He then moved to recoup $241,931.15 (a requested lodestar of $161,954.10 plus a positive 1.5 multiplier).

Family Law Two-Fer: Awarding Fees Against Ex-Husband As Spousal Support Caused No Harm And Ex-Wife’s Failure To Appeal Temporary 2030 Fee Denial Barred Any Appellate Challenge

Cases: Family Law

  Marriage of Brown, Case No. D063584 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 9, 2014) (Unpublished).      In this one, a lower court ordered ex-husband (a U.S. military service member) to pay $5,500 in Family Code section 4320 needs-based fees, but ordered them paid as spousal support. Husband argued that the decision to make the order

Happy Sixth Birthday To Us And Thanks To Readers Out There.

Off Topics

     1934.  Cutting the cake at Pres. Roosevelt’s Birthday Ball.  Library of Congress.      There is an adage that time speeds up as you age. We can attest to that. This fee blog is six years old, with the inaugural post occurring on May 11, 2008. We thank all of our readers and followers for

Allocation/Intellectual Property/Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Prevailing On Trade Misappropriation Claim To The Tune Of $1,513,400 Also Entitled To Statutory Fees Of $3,297,102.50

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Published Part of Opinion on Fee Issues Focuses on Reasonable Hourly Rates in Court Venue.      Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc., Case Nos. A134343/A135831 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion on hourly rates published but rest of fee discussion unpublished) dealt with both the merits of

Cases Under Review/Intellectual Property: SCOTUS Decides Companion Cases About The "Exceptional Case" Language In Patent Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Intellectual Property

  Octane Fitness Rejects Rigid Test For Determining What Is An "Exceptional Case," Giving Great Discretion to District Courts.      In Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. __, Case No. 12-1184 (U.S. Supreme Ct. Apr. 29, 2014), SCOTUS rejected a more rigid Federal Circuit test for determining what is an

Lodestar/Laffey Matrix/Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $843,245.27 Civil Code Section 1717 Fee Request/Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Successful Defendants Substantiated Hours and Hourly Rate Very Well In This One.      Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin, Case No. A137610 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 5, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where a $843,245.27 defense fee award under Civil Code section 1717 was challenged on narrow grounds—with plaintiff disputing the reasonableness of

Costs/Settlements: FDCPA—SCOTUS Decides Nonprevailing Plaintiff Can Be Discretionarily Liable For Costs Without Proof Of Bad Faith; Second Circuit Informs Defendants How To Moot FDCPA Claims Through Rule 68 Offer

Cases: Costs, Cases: Settlement

  Marx Confronted Costs Issue, Providing Relief to Prevailing Defendants In District Court’s Discretion.      In Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1172 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an unsuccessful plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) case can be liable for defense costs even absent proof that

Scroll to Top