Author name: Marc Alexander

Civil Rights/Multiplier: FEHA Plaintiff Winning $470,000 Compensatory Damages Properly Awarded Prevailing Party Fees Of $431,884.25

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

  1.33 Multiplier Was Justified.      Plaintiff in Pena v. Central Freight Lines, Case Nos. A134753/A138014 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 4, 2013) (unpublished) won $470,000 in economic/noneconomic damages after a bench trial, with the lower court subsequently awarding $431,884.25 in fees under the FEHA fee-shifting statute–including a 1.33 multiplier, despite plaintiff requesting fees of […]

Indemnity/Defense: City Of Bell Did Not Owe Duty To Defend Ex-Chief Administrative Officer Rizzo In City’s Civil Restitution Suit Or Criminal Suits

Cases: Indemnity

  Government Code Section 996.6 Does Not Permit Contractual Expansion of Defense Obligations.      Well, we know from the news about the City of Bell scandal. Former Chief Administrative Officer Rizzo brought a declaratory relief action to see if the City of Bell had to provide him a defense in City’s civil action restitution against

Settlement: Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Does Not Automatically Moot Plaintiff’s Claim Even If Would Result In Total Satisfaction

Cases: Settlement

  District Court Dismissal Is Reversed.      The Ninth Circuit, in Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp., Case No. 11-57239 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2013) (for publication), reversed a district court’s dismissal, determining that an unaccepted F.R.Civ. P. Rule 68 offer that would have satisfied plaintiff’s individual claims does not render the claim

Cases Under Review: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari On Two Fee Issues In Patent Cases

Cases: Cases Under Review

  Objectively Baseless Appellate Review and Federal Circuit’s 2-Part “Exceptional Case” Test Are At Issue.      On October 1, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review two Federal Circuit opinions involving fee issues in patent cases.      Patent Office Bldg.  Washington, D.C. Lib. of Cong.      The first one, Highmark v. Allcare Health

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Substantiation Of Fees: Contempt Judgment Fee Recovery Of $25,811 Affirmed Because Counsel Declaration Will Suffice For Fee Substantiation

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

  California State Court Rules, More Lax, Steer the Determination.      In a long-standing feud of a sense, a trial court in Ripken v. Ballard, Case No. C070158 (3d Dist. Oct. 3, 2013) (unpublished) found that defendant was in contempt for disobeying a 2002 judgment restraining her and her agents from trespassing, blocking, or putting

Liens For Attorney Fees: Subsequent Judgment Creditor Cannot Defeat Prior Attorney’s Lien In Client Retainer Letter

Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees

  Lien Not Collusive and Did Not Violate RPC 3-300.       We can sympathize with judgment creditors who then find out about a “secret” attorney’s lien which can often trump those other creditors‘ rights without having any notice of the attorney’s lien. The next case illustrates the point very poignantly.       Agora Concepts, Inc. v.

Deadlines: Where Court Judgment Said Everyone Would Bear Own Fees/Costs, Prevailing Party Had To File Fee Motion To Challenge This Determination

Cases: Deadlines

  Simply Appealing Was Not So Appealing.      In San Diego Natives Holding Co, LLC v. Hughes, Case No. D061523 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 3, 2013) (unpublished), a judge did enter a judgment by which a party prevailed but said each side should bear its own costs/fees. The prevailing party appealed this determination.     

Continuing Legal Education: NALFA’s 2013 Attorney Fee Conference Scheduled For October 25, 2013 In San Francisco

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

NALFA      The National Association of Legal Fees Analysis (NALFA), which has its own website and an excellent fee blog, is hosting its 2013 Attorney Fee Conference at the San Francisco Bar Association on October 25, 2013.      The 2013 conference includes 20 panelists and 3 current/past judges, including Hon. Richard Kramer (San Francisco Superior

Insurance: Insurer Agreeing To Indemnify/Defend For Damages Does Not Have To Defend Insured Against Third Party Seeking Only Injunctive Relief

Cases: Insurance

  Local Santa Ana Appellate Court So Holds.      Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam, in San Miguel Community Assn. v. State Farm General Ins. Co., Case No. G047738 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 1, 2013) (unpublished) on behalf of a 3-0 panel, framed the issue in this case and answered it as follows:      “Question: When

Scroll to Top