Author name: Marc Alexander

Family Law/Prevailing Party: Adoption Facilitator Defendants Obtaining Order Compelling Arbitration And Eventual Voluntary Dismissal Of Suit Were Prevailing Parties Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Basis for Fee Recovery Was Family Code Section 8638(c).      In Bates v. Kors, Case No. D063123 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished), registered adoption facilitator defendants obtained a statutory fee award of $14,760 against plaintiffs, parents attempting to adopt a surrogate baby, under Family Code section 8638(c). Section 8638(c) allows a […]

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees: On Remand, $68,898 Apportioned Fees Out Of $179,000 Original Request Found Justified

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Originally, Only $1,050 Ordered, But Apportioned Amount Went Up When New Judge Assigned to Fix Fees on Remand.      This case has an interesting history, including a prior appeal which resulted in this decision after the case was remanded and attorneys’ fees were “re-fixed.” However, the post-remand appellate decision does have some great pointers

Appeal Sanctions/Family Law: $8,000 In Sanctions To Ex-Wife For Child Support Arrears Reimbursement, Denial Of Discovery Sanctions To Ex-Husband, And $22,000 Appeals Sanctions Against Husband/His Counsel For Frivolous Appeal All Sustained

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

  Be careful what you appeal.      In Marriage of O’Neill and Mitruka, Case Nos. Do62049/D062539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed these lower court determinations in a family law dispute:      (a) Sustained a $8,000 fee award in favor of ex-wife for obtaining child support arrears reimbursement given

Family Law: $15,000 Needs-Based Fee Award Against Ex-Husband Scaled Back Because Ex-Wife Only Requested $7,500

Cases: Family Law

  Due Process Compelled the “Scale Back.”      Marriage of Vidales, Case No. F064783 (5th Dist. Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished) was a situation where a perfectly-proper “needs based” award of $15,000 was granted to ex-wife because ex-husband was behind on child support and had more income than ex-wife. However, the appellate court scaled back the

Private Attorney General/Requests for Admissions: Lower Court Correctly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees And Properly Awarded Petitioner $10,400 In RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions While Properly Denying Defense Costs-Of-Proof Request

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Requests for Admission

  End Result: $10,400 In Sanctions to Petitioner.      In Riverside Sheriffs’ Assn. v. County of Riverside, Case No. E054180 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished), the lower court earlier had found that Riverside County violated a salary ordinance relating to temporary employee hiring, with the Sheriffs’ Association obtaining a writ which directed

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Motorcycle Dealership Winning Vehicle Code Section 11713.3 Claim For Franchisor Wrongfully Withholding Consent To Dealership Sale Correctly Awarded $533,350 In Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Dealer Not Entitled To Fees For Administrative Proceedings/Related Writ Proceedings Associated With Administrative Level Battles.      Powerhouse Motorsports Group, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., Case No. B236705 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 26, 2013) (published) involved a retail motorcycle dealership obtaining a jury verdict award of over $1.3 million in compensatory/punitive damages against

Social Security: Attorney’s Fees Request Denied Under EAJA Because Reversal Of Denial Of Social Security Disability Benefits Was Unusual Case Where Government’s Position Was Substantially Justified

Cases: Social Security

  Majority and Dissent Differed Over Application of Meier v. Covin.      In an earlier opinion, the Ninth Circuit had reversed the denial of social security disability benefits. However, the federal appeals court then denied the winner’s request for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which generally supports fee requests unless

SLAPP: $129,938.75 Fee Award To Prevailing Defendant Was No Abuse Of Discretion In Complicated Malicious Prosecution Claim

Cases: SLAPP

  Correctness of Award Reinforced by $14,000 Reduction in Requested Fees.      By now, you followers of our blog know that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) provides for a mandatory award of fees to a winning SLAPP defendant. Because these proceedings are often intensive and involve parsing through lots of documents/issues, large awards are

Scroll to Top