Author name: Marc Alexander

Deadlines/Retainer Agreements: Attorney’s Amendment According To Proof On Fourth Day Of Trial Is Abuse Of Discretion When Based On Much Different Fee Exposure And Different Fee Retainer Provision

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Delay and Prejudice Were Key Factors to Reversal of the Amendment Grant.      California litigation practitioners know that pleading amendments are generally liberally granted, although that liberality gets tightened when the requests are made closer to or during trial. The next case is one where an amendment grant four days into a jury trial […]

Private Attorney General: Owner Obtaining Issuance of Unconditional Certificates Of Compliance Not Entitled to CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Owner’s Economic Benefits Outstripped Cost of Litigation Based on Conflicting Trial Court Evidence Presented in Fee Motion.      County of Santa Cruz was ordered to issue four unconditional certificates of compliance for 4 parcels owned by Heather Point. However, Heather Point was denied recovery of attorney’s fees of around $475,000 under CCP § 1021.5,

Arbitration/Prevailing Party: Arbitration Claimants Prevailing On Appeal Entitled To An Award Of Appellate Fees And Costs

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

  $50,000 Arbitration Fee Award Likely Will Get Increased on Remand.      In American State University v. Kiemm, Case No. B242766 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 29, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed in a contractually-mandated arbitration, winning an arbitration award of $900,000 in compensatory damages, $500,000 in punitive damages, and $50,000 in attorney’s fees in a

In The News . . . . Toyota Settlement With Orange County District Attorney Results In $4 Million In Fees And Costs to Counsel Behind The Settlement

In The News

  25% Percentage of Recovery Is the Bottom Line Here.      As reported by Teri Sforza in an April 29, 2013 article in The Orange County Register, attorneys representing the People of the State of California in a case against Toyota over alleged sudden-acceleration defect misrepresentations/omissions have forged a settlement of $16 million. Of that,

Prevailing Party/Section 1717/Substantiation Of Fees/Apportionment/Reasonableness Of Fees: People Of The State Of California Get $2.944 Million Fee Recovery In Tobacco Cases I Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

     Cigarette ad, Times Square.  Feb. 1943.  John Vachon, photographer.  LOC.      Although this case has quite a storied history, In re Tobacco Cases I, Case Nos. D061077/D061676 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 26, 2013) (unpublished) looks like it may be finally finished, thanks to this decision.      What happened is this, in brief. People,

Consumer Statutes/Substantiation Of Fees: Heritage Pacific Decision Now Published

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

  Discusses Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Fee-Shifting and Block Billing.      In our April 5, 2013 post, we discussed Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy, which discussed the FDCPA pro-plaintiff fee-shifting statute (even where success is modest) and block billing issues (confirming that trial courts have discretion on how to penalize block billing, if

Section 1717: Fee Recovery Denied To Trial Settling Plaintiff Because Settlement Or Subsequent Settlement Did Not Have Fee Entitlement Basis

Cases: Section 1717

  $116,275 in Requested Fees Was the Resultant Loss.      Milette v. Vaughns, Case No. A134468 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 22, 2013) (unpublished) teaches all settling parties an important lesson: if you want to recover fees after a settlement, make sure the settlement or ensuing judgment pursuant to the settlement has a fees clause

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Voluntarily Dismissing Plaintiff May Still Be Exposed To Attorney’s Fees Under Santisas On Remand

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee Denial Reversed and Remanded.      Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) is one of our Leading Cases. It held that a voluntary dismissal of a case will bar Civil Code section 1717 contractually-based fee claim recovery, but not recovery under other claims. Instead, a broadly phrased fees clause may afford a contractual

Scroll to Top