Author name: Marc Alexander

Appeal Sanctions: Losing Appellant/Appellant’s Counsel Ordered To Pay Respondent’s Appeal Expenses And Attorney Hit With $8,500 Sanctions Payable To Appellate Court Clerk

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

  Civility Is Also Stressed in Decision.      Wong v. Genser, Case No. A133837 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 30, 2012) (unpublished) is not only a lesson in tenacity, but also shows how an appealing party must be candid with the appellate tribunal–under penalty of harsh appellate sanctions. Also, the decision has some important words […]

Cases Under Review: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Review On Whether Plaintiff Losing Case, But Receiving Precedential Equitable Tolling Decision, Entitled to Fee Recovery In Federal Vaccine Case

Cases: Cases Under Review

       Recently, on November 20, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Sebelius v. Cloer, No. 12-236, granted certiorari in a Federal Circuit decision (675 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), where a plaintiff losing a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program argued she was still entitled to fee recovery. At the Federal Circuit

Sanctions: Attorney’s Fees As Sanctions Under CRC 2.30 Only Authorized For Fees Incurred In Sanctions Proceedings, Not Fees Incurred As A Result Of Underlying CRC Rule Violations

Cases: Sanctions

       In Sino Century Development Ltd. v. Farley, Case No B236912 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 3, 2012) (published), a trial judge imposed $81,461.13 in sanctions upon a defendant and his counsel under California Rule of Court 2.30, which authorizes “reasonable monetary sanctions” to be awarded to a party by a person failing without

Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fee Clause Under Joint Venture Agreement Allowed Fee Recovery By Administrator Of Partner’s Estate

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

       In Mako Fund, Inc. v. Perrone, Case No. B238048 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2012) (unpublished), two litigants sued each other and one obtained a judgment for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney’s fees. After winner found out that loser lacked assets to satisfy the judgment, it moved to

Arbitration: Attorney’s Fees Granted Under Purchase Agreement Not Entered Into By Parties Or Subject To Claims Sustained Because Fee Issue Was Submitted For Arbitrator Determination

Cases: Arbitration

  Merits of Ruling Could Not Be Scutinized.      Hospitality Marketing Consultants, LLC v. Case, Case No. G046283 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2012) (unpublished) demonstrates why clients and attorneys need to balance expediency of arbitration against the limited review of arbitrator decision-making before agreeing to an arbitration clause or stipulating to consensual arbitration.

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Even Though No Attorney’s Fees Sought, Trial Court Did Not Error In Using Government Code Section 800 Principles In Determining If County Board’s Action Was Unreasonable And Arbitrary

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       Here is an interesting one in which no fees were requested, but a trial court used, and appellate court countenanced, use of a fee-shifting statute in making a merits determination of whether a governmental administrative agency’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable in nature.      In Graber v. County of San Bernardino, Case

In The News . . . . Fannie Mae Issues Attorney Fee Ceilings For Nonjudicial and Judicial Foreclosure Matters

In The News

       Fannie Mae recently issued a new set of fee ceilings, by state, for attorneys handling nonjudicial and judicial foreclosures of whole mortgages, pooled loans, and mortgage-backed securities tied to Fannie Mae. The guidelines are by jurisdiction, with California breaking down this way: nonjudicial — $1,000 (both attorney’s fees and notary fees included); judicial

Scroll to Top