Author name: Marc Alexander

Appealability/Costs/Section 998: Defendant’s Failure To Appeal Motion To Tax Costs Ruling After Entry of Judgment Meant Appellate Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Review Costs Ruling

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  Appellate Court Followed Fish v. Guevarra, Finding It Was Rightly Decided.      Many times in blogging over the years, we have stressed that postjudgment fees and costs rulings should be separately appealed as a preventive measure. The next case reinforces the prudence in following this general protocol.      Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., Case […]

Special Fee Shifting Provision: Public Records Act Petitioner Was Successful Party Entitled To $9,787.82 In Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Petitioner Prevailed On This Score — 3 Requests Granted, 2 Requests Denied, and 2 Requests Informally Resolved.      Petitioner seeking records on mold presence in a school district’s properties was able to force district to comply by producing certain records in Garcia v. Governing Bd. of Bellflower Unified School Dist., Case No. B247320 (2d

Construction: Contractor Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Government Code Section Only Allowing Recovery To Local Agency

Cases: Construction

  Former Payment Bond Fee Entitlement Section Inapplicable Because Record Did Not Show Public Project Involved.      In Nissho of Calif., Inc. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co., Case No. E052746 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 22, 2013) (published), contractor recovered over $1 million against owner and surety giving a payment guarantee through bonds for offsite

Insurance: San Miguel Community Decision Now Published

Cases: Insurance

  Insurance Policy Providing Coverage for Damages Does Not Entitle Insurer to Defense for Injunctive-Only Suit.      In our October 5, 2013 post, we discussed San Miguel Community Assn. v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., Case No. G047738 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 1, 2013), an unpublished decision holding that an insured under a policy

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Even Heavily Redacted Spreadsheets Of Work Effort Will Support Fee Petition In California State Courts

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  $224,124 Fee Award Out of Requested $260,595 Deemed Reasonable, Although Preferred Substantiation Should Be More Detailed in Nature.      Defendants prevailing in a summary judgment proceeding involving a deed of trust with a fees clause sought to recover $252,595 in fees plus $8,000 in costs for a grand fee/costs award of $260,595. The trial

SLAPP: SLAPP Grant Affirmed, But Fee Award Reversed Because Law Firm Represented Itself In SLAPP Proceeding

Cases: SLAPP

  $3,842 Fee Award Overturned.      Two well-known Orange County based law firms squared off in Catanzarite Law Corp. v. Gordon & Rees, LLP, Case No. G047968 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished).      Plaintiff law firm accused defendant law firm of contractual interference after plaintiff’s former clients apparently did not pay plaintiff

Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Defendant Losing Financial Elder Abuse Case Exposed To Fees Award

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $700,000 Was Fee Award, With Appellate Court Sustaining $686,500 Of It In Conceded Reductions.      Defendant in Kalfin v. Kalfin, Case No. G047275 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished) was hit with a $1.4 million compensatory and $260,000 punitive damages award on causes of action for contractual breach and financial abuse in

Fee Clause Interpretation: Bail Bonds Company’s Failure To Attach Bail Agreement Did Not Establish Entitlement For Contempt Finding Against Non-Party To Bail Agreement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

       Bail bonds company, which was not a party to bail agreement involving a surety, claimed it won a contempt proceeding and was entitled to fees under the bail agreement. The lower court disagreed, and bail bonds company appealed.      This result was affirmed in Robinson v. Montana Bail Bonds, Inc., Case No. B246891

Section 998: Trial Court’s Entry Of Invalid 998 Offers As Judgment Against Terms Of Acceptance Had To Be Reversed

Cases: Section 998

  Plaintiff’s Inclusion of Acceptance Terms Being Filed With Court Meant 998 Offers Were Not Valid Statutory Offers, But Were Valid Non-Statutory Offers Not Accepted Correctly.      Arreola v. Napole, Case No. B239467 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished) is an interesting case of 998 offers which likely were not authorized, but in

POOF!: Reversal Of State Fair Debt Collection Judgment Means Fee Award Goes Away Too

Cases: POOF!

  $41,262.50 Fee Award Evaporates.      In Mansour-White v. Grant & Weber, Inc., Case No. B239900 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiffs won a malicious prosecution action and state fair debt collection act violations, winning $30,000 for emotional distress, $2,000 for statutory violations, and $41,262.50 in statutory attorney’s fees. Well, once the

Scroll to Top