Author name: Marc Alexander

Probate/Reasonableness Of Fees: 38% Reduction In Requested Lodestar Fee Request For Attorneys In Short Conservatorship Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Record Supported Probate Court’s Reduction, With That Award Being 25% Higher Than Probate Examiner Recommendation.      Attorneys rendering services to a conservator can seek compensation from the court under Probate Code section 2640, with the ultimate fixing of the fee award residing in the discretion of the probate court.      In Conservatorship of Rawls, […]

Trade Secrets: Failure To Identify Trade Secret With Particularity Meant Plaintiff’s Case Was Baseless, Justifying A Fee Award Of More Than $202,291.50 To Defendant

Cases: Trade Secrets

  Civil Code Section 3426.4 Was the Fee Entitlement Predicate.      Civil Code section 3426.4 allows a prevailing party in a trade secret misappropriation case to obtain a discretionary award of attorney’s fees and costs if the claim is made in bad faith. Case law has clarified that both objective speciousness and subjective bad faith

Eminent Domain/POOF: Once Precondemnation Damages Reversed, Substantial Attorney’s Fees/Litigation Expense Award Goes Permanently POOF!

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

       California’s Department of Transportation in People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. McNamara, Case No. H036228 (6th Dist. Aug. 14, 2013) (published) was hit with a $1.6 million damages award, inclusive of $400,000 for precondemnation damages. Depending on the spread between the condemnee’s final settlement demand and DOT’s final offer as well as

Standard Of Review: Lower Court’s Decision Denying Dueling Fee Requests In 16-Plus Year Litigation Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Standard of Review

  Even Though Fee Request Considered By Subsequent Judge, No Abuse.      Here is how Banyan Ltd. Partnership v. Baer, Case No. G046428 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 12, 2013) (unpublished) began: “This is the last of the three appeals that follow the final judgment in this 16-plus year, multi-phase litigation.” This appeal involved a

In The News . . . . New Wells Fargo Survey Of 120 U.S. Law Firms Show Sluggish, Anemic Growth For First Half Of 2013, Compared to Same 2012 Period

In The News

  Average Hours Fell, Expenses Increased, But Equity Partner Capital Rose A Little.      Above:  Iron deficiency anemia blood.  Dr. Graham Beards, author.  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.      According to a Wells Fargo survey of 120 U.S. law firms from the first half of this year, law firms are seeing sluggish/anemic growth.

Civil Rights: EEOC Has To Pay $4,694,442.14 Fee/Expenses/Costs Award To Defendant’s Attorneys Based On District Court’s Determination That Most Of The Claims Were Unreasonable/Groundless

Cases: Civil Rights

  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) is the Fee-Shifting Statute.      Interestingly enough, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) has a fee-shifting statute allowing district judges to assess fees/costs against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) if it does not prevail in an action, with the added wrinkle that the winning defendant must prove that EEOC’s action was

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Specialized Housing Development Statute Only Allowed Fee Recovery For Affordable Housing Developments

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Case Is A Good One For Use of Legislative History When Confronting An Ambiguous Statute.      Government Code section 65589.5(k) provides that the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff proposing “the housing development” under the Not-In-My-Back-Yard law, which usually would be a fee-shifting provision that was pro-developer

Family Law: Husband Ordered To Pay $50,000 In Fees To Wife Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

  Failure to Make Findings Did Not Require Reversal of Fees Award.      Husband, after found to have diverted $181,951 secretly from various accounts, was hit with a $50,000 fee award in wife’s favor based either on need/financial basis (Family Code sections 2030/2032) or as sanctions for litigious conduct (Family Code section 271).      Husband’s

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Person Injured From Criminal Theft Activity Can Obtain Treble Damages And Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fybel/Feibush/Fees: Penal Code Section 496(c) Is the Fee-Shifting Predicate.      Although not directly addressing fees but certainly mentioning a fee-shifting statute, Justice Fybel in Bell v. Feibush, 212 Cal.App.4th 1041 (2013) [4th Dist., Div. 3], certainly discusses Penal Code section 496(c). That provisions states that any person “who has been injured by a violation

Scroll to Top