Author name: Marc Alexander

Section 1717/Settlement: Couple Releasing Former Law Firm In Settlement Agreement Hit With Fee Recovery Of $230,803 In Favor Of Former Law Firm

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Contractual Clauses in Retainer and Settlement Agreements Conferred Fee Entitlement Upon Former Law Firm.      This next case demonstrates a couple of things—first, be careful how you draft settlement releases (because they may release inadvertent parties and give rise to fee recovery), and second, subjective intent evidence is generally not probative in parol evidence […]

Employment: Defense Winning Independent Contractor Case Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Labor Code Former Section 218.5 Under The Circumstances

Cases: Employment

  Fee Recovery Carved Out Under Labor Code Section 1194.      Justice Fybel, as the 3-0 panel author in Arreola v. One More Productions, Case No. G047467 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 5, 2014) (unpublished), affirmed denial of an attorney’s fees request of $27,265 to the defense under Labor Code former section 218.5.      Once

Appealability/Sanctions: Non-Aggrieved Parties, Not Attorneys, Appealing From Sanctions Order Lacked Standing

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

  Appeal Dismissed on Summary Basis.      Gotta have standing to appeal. Basic principle, but one reinforced in Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi v. Azizi, Case No. A138115 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 5, 2014) (unpublished).      Clients’ attorneys got sanctioned in a discovery matter, with the lower court imposing a $10,500 sanctions order. Clients appealed.

IP/POOF!/SLAPP: A SLAPP Fee Award And Copyright Claim Dismissal Fee Recovery Go POOF!, While Another SLAPP Fee Award Of $248,506 Plus Fees On Fees Affirmed

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Appealing Parties Could Not Surmount Abuse of Discretion Standard on Second SLAPP Fee Award.      In Graham-Sult v. Clainos, Case No. 11-16779 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2014) (published), one defendants obtained a SLAPP fee recovery of $126,431.50 (out of a requested $133,431.50) and a second group of defendants obtained a SLAPP fee recovery of $248,506

Section 1717: Hmong Litigation Fight Results In Prevailing Defendants Gaining $88,742.47 In Attorney’s Fees In Dismissed Lawsuit

Cases: Section 1717

  Declaratory Relief Count Was Contractual; Fee Clause Did Encompass Nonsignatory Defendants As Far As Fee Recovery.      Fresno, California has a fairly large Hmong population, and this next case was a contractual battle between corporate parties and officers/directors where plaintiffs eventually dismissed their case against prevailing party defendants pursuant to stipulation after failing to

SLAPP: Appellate Court Determined Libel Count Was Meritorious, Requiring Lower Court To Entertain Opposing Parties’ SLAPP Fee Request

Cases: SLAPP

  Lower Court Erred in Deciding SLAPP Motion Lacked Merit.      In Monarch Consulting, Inc. v. Zamora, Case No. B244791 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 31, 2014) (unpublished), cross-complainant ex-employee countersued cross-defendants ex-employer/employer’s CEO for libel, triggering a SLAPP motion by cross-defendants. Before the hearing, ex-employee filed a nonopposition and dismissed the libel count. However,

Scroll to Top