Author name: Marc Alexander

Costs, Employment, POOF!, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Proving Whistleblower Case, But Obtaining No Relief As Employer Proved A “Same-Decision Defense,” Was Erroneously Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under One-Way Whistleblower Statute, Labor Code 1102.5

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

$400,000 Fee Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law, With County Entitled To Routine Costs As The Prevailing Party Below.                In a “mixed-motive” whistleblower case, plaintiff proved the elements of his whistleblower claim, but he obtained no relief because defendant employer proved the “same-decision defense.”  The lower court in Lampkin v. County of Los […]

Homeowner Associations, SLAPP: $6,300 SLAPP Fee Award In HOA’s Favor Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: SLAPP

Main Reason Is That Homeowner Did Not Oppose the Fee Request, So Waiver Occurred.                In Trabuco Highlands Community Assn. v. Loeffler, Case No. G063862 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 1, 2025) (unpublished), HOA SLAPPed a state collection statutory action brought by a homeowner, with the lower court awarding mandatory SLAPP fees of $6,300 to

Employment, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff’s Win On Some FEHA Claims Justified A $1,385,546 Fees/Costs Award

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Compensatory Award Was $709,555, With Counsel’s Skill And Multiplier Request Supporting The Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal.                The trial judge in Ramirez v. Bala, Case No. H049689 (6th Dist. June 30, 2025) (unpublished) awarded a FEHA plaintiff $1,385,546 in attorney’s fees and costs (about the full request, inclusive of a 1.5 multiplier) after plaintiff

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Homeowner’s Voluntary Dismissal Of HOA Without Prejudice Did Entitle HOA To Attorney’s Fees Under The Davis-Stirling Act Fee Shifting Provision

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

$148,142.26 Was The Fee/Costs Award Against Homeowner, Affirmed On Appeal.                We frequently have posted on homeowner-HOA disputes.  They are contentious.  However, whoever prevails—and that can be a discretionary call—or if no one prevails can be a game changer in these disputes, much to the chagrin of one side or both sides.                Jennings v.

Ethics: Defense Counsel’s Failure To Notify Plaintiff Or Lower Court About Ineligibility To Practice Of Plaintiff’s Attorney Led To A Reversal And Remand Of An Adverse Fee Award Against Plaintiff

Cases: Ethics

Plaintiff Was Not In Pro Per, But Basically Unrepresented By Ineligible Counsel And No One Gave Her Notice Of The Ineligibility—Civility Again Stressed In The Fees Area.                Civility has been stressed in many recent appellate opinions, with fee reductions affirmed and with multipliers denied based on incivility by a litigant’s claiming attorney asking for

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Awarding Fresno Rates To Attorney Litigating In Orange County And Slashing Fees/Cost Request By 82.9% Had Its Award Reversed And Remanded On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Venue Rates Had To Be Used And The Substantial “Haircut” Needed More Explanation.                What happened in Tidrick v. FCA US LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2025) (unpublished) is that lemon law plaintiffs requesting $82,719.33 in fees and costs ($74,275 in fees and $8,444.33 in costs) were only awarded a

Deadlines, Fees As Damages: Former Counsel In Contempt Proceeding For A Prevailing Party Was Entitled To A Fee Award Under CCP § 1218

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Fees as Damages

Fee Request Was Reduced, But Lower Court Found That Prevailing Party’s Subsequent Counsel’s Withdrawal Of A Prior Timely Fee Motion Allowed Former Counsel A Reason To Still Have It Heard In The Lower Court’s Discretion.                In Vista Land, LLC v. Robinson, Case No. B331975 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2025) (unpublished), defendants were

Arbitration, Sanctions: $183,304 In Sanctions Relating To Abandoned Arbitration Proceeding Awarded Against Employer Not Timely Paying Arbitration Expenses Under CCP § 1281.98(c)(1)

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions Are Awardable Where Fees Were Expended In Terminated Arbitration Proceedings.                In an area where there has been a lot of litigation, an employer faces litigating in court and paying sanctions to an employee in a situation where employee wants to arbitrate but employer fails to adhere to the payment deadlines in CCP §§

Section 998: Defendants Held Jointly And Severally Liable Did Not Beat Jury Verdict So As To Escape Costs Under Section 998

Cases: Section 998

No Non-Economic Damages Were Sought In Vehicle Property Injury Case, So Appealing Defendants Did Not Fashion A Successful 998 Offer.                Defendants were held jointly and severally liable in a vehicle property injury matter where plaintiff recovered a $204,528 jury verdict damages award as against them and others, based on damages to plaintiff’s truck and

Scroll to Top