Author name: Marc Alexander

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Plaintiff Achieving Objective In Defeating Bail Bond Annual Renewal Fee Was Not Properly Assessed With Fees As “Non-Prevailing Party”

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Plaintiff Did Achieve What He Wanted, So Reversal of Fortunes—He Prevailed!      The appellate court in Zock v. Esparza, Case No. D062784 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished) reversed as a matter of law a lower court’s grant of fees against a plaintiff who actually achieved his main litigation results. Basically, plaintiff […]

Construction/Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Payment Bond Made Clear That Surety Not Liable To Additional Fees/Costs Above Penal Bond Sum, Party Obtaining Fees In Derogation Of This Limitation Not Entitled to Fees

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

  Only County Entitled to Additional Fees/Costs Over Penal Sum Based on Clear Terms in Payment Bond.      In Granite Constr. Co. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co., Case No. C066759 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished), surety under a payment bond lost an exoneration argument at trial based on a settlement agreement which had a

Costs: Where Prevailing Party Falls Into One Of Mandatory Cost Categories, Lower Court Has No Discretion And Must Award Costs

Cases: Costs

  Trial Courts Cannot Determine “Prevailing Party” Discretionarily, If Categorical Fit Exists.      Site Management Services, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC, Case No. D057106 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished) is a doozy of a case, involving colocation agreements between cellular tower and related service companies.      “A very orange Bryan Jordan

Reasonableness Of Fees/Substantiation Of Fees: Detailed Time Entries, Even Without Billings, Supported $192,678.98 Fees/Costs Award Even Though Compensatory Damages Were Only $44,960.32

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Trial Court Showed Discretion Exercised by Slicing $34,630.75 From Fee Request.      Just to show you that fee awards do not have to be proportional to damages and that California does not absolutely require fee billings as substantiation, we refer readers to A-Z Bus. Sales, Inc. v. City of Burbank, Case Nos. B244867/B247187 (2d

Private Attorney General: Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Obtained Technical EIR Correction Of A Transparent Nature Benefitting Only A Small Zone of Neighbors

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Standard of Review

  Deferential Standard/Implied Findings Supported Ruling Below.      The standard of review adopted by an appellate court is frequently one of the most important compasses guiding the ultimate result reached in a case up on appeal. Lynbrook-Monta Vista United v. Fremont Union High School Dist., Case No. H038553 (6th Dist. Mar. 12, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates

Appealability/Equity: Reversal Of Judgment Against 66 Plaintiffs, 61 Of Which Appealed, Meant Fee Award Against All Gets Reversed

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Equity

  Otherwise, 5 Nonappealing Parties Would Get Stuck With Substantial Fee Exposure Even Though Some Appealing Parties Might Win On Remand.      Appellate courts are comprised of justices, who not only follow the law but attempt to reach a fair result based on the circumstances. Adams v. MHC Colony Park Ltd. Partnership, Case No. F062160

Continuing Education: Orange County Superior Court Judges Andler and Colaw Provides Some Types On How They Approach Discovery Sanctions Requests Before Their Departments

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

  They Also Provide Useful Law and Motion Tips.      On March 7, 2014, the Orange County Bar Association (Business Litigation Section) hosted an MCLE program entitled “Are You Arguing Motions Effectively?” with the judicial panelists being Orange County Superior Court Judges Gail A. Andler and Thierry P. Colaw.      One of the topics was

Appealability/Civil Rights/Costs: Trial Court’s Reduction Of Some Costs Items Showed It Did Credit Ability To Pay When Assessing Costs Against Non-prevailing FEHA Plaintiff

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

  DCA Also Addressed Some Special Costs Items in the Process; Sustained Cost Award Assessed Against Counsel When Counsel Did Not Appeal.      Losing plaintiff in a FEHA case appealed after the lower court ordered that $34,906.12 in routine costs be paid by her (out of a requested $54,667.39).      Her challenges to the award

Scroll to Top