Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General: $32,496.75 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Request Against County Clerk And Real Party In Interest (RIP) Properly Denied Because They Were Not “Opposing Parties” And No Private Enforcement Necessity Was Present

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

A Dissenting Justice Believed RIP Was An “Opposing Party,” And Would Have Remanded To The Lower Court To Assess If Other Elements Of Section 1021.5 Were Satisfied.             In Holloway v. Wylie, Case No. H050376 (6th Dist. Sept. 12, 2023) (unpublished), petitioner prevailed on an unopposed mandate petition to delete from a voter information guide […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $955,500 Fee Award And $83,246.52 Costs Award Affirmed In Elder Neglect Case

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Total Compensatory Damages Were $696,833.97.             As we have observed before in line with our Mission Statement, attorney’s fees can be the game winner where there is a fee-shifting basis—contractual, statutory, or equitable.  Newton v. Enloe Medical Center, Case No. C095324 (3d Dist. Sept. 12, 2023) (unpublished) illustrates that well.             This was an elder

Construction, Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Los Angeles County Superior Court Awards A Little Over $1.3 Million In Fees And About $82,000 In Costs In Construction Dispute With Contractual Fees Clause Entitlement

Cases: Construction, Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Decision Provides Insights Into Judicial Resolution Of Contested Fee And Costs Issues.             Because there has not been a lot of fee or costs decisions in the last couple of weeks, we report on a Los Angeles County Superior Court (Norwalk) final ruling on attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff in WnG Construction

Mediation: Prevailing Parties Properly Were Awarded Contractual Attorney’s Fees Because They Did Not Violate the Prelitigation, Mediation Provision

Cases: Mediation

Fee Award Of $527,639.99 To Certain LLC Member Defendants Affirmed On Appeal.             We do have a category entitled “Mediation” on our home page, surveying opinions which have discussed prelitigation, mediation contractual provisions requiring mediation before litigation as a qualification for prevailing party fee entitlement.  We have another case to add to this category.            

Sanctions: $5,676 In CCP §128.7 Sanctions Affirmed Where Employees Brought Their Own Withdrawn 128.7 Motion For An Improper Purpose

Cases: Sanctions

Defense Requested $8,000 In Fees As Sanctions, But Lower Court Awarded Less.             Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, in Maldonado v. Aluminum Precision Products, Case No. G061415 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 28, 2023) (unpublished), authored an opinion affirming a $5,676 attorney’s fees award from the defense having to oppose an improper CCP § 128.7 motion

Family Law: While Ex-Wife and Ex-Husband Were Litigating The Validity Of A Marital Settlement Agreement With An “Each Side Bears Own Fees” Clause, Lower Court Still Properly Awarded Family Code Section 2030 Need-Based Fees To Ex-Wife

Cases: Family Law

MSA Was Not Preemptive In Nature.             Ex-wife and ex-husband in Mathur v. Mathur, Case No. H050018 (6th Dist. Aug. 25, 2023) (unpublished) were litigating the validity of a martial settlement agreement (MSA) with a provision stating that each side would bear her/his own attorney’s fees.  The lower court still awarded ex-wife $61,455 in need-based

Appealability, Deadlines: Appeal Of Later Amended Judgment Including Fees And Costs Was Untimely With Respect To A Review Of The Merits Decision Reflected In the Original Judgment

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines

The Later Amended Judgment Was No Substantial Modification To The Original Judgment.             The next opinion, San Diego Innovation Center, LLC v. Skyriver Communications, Inc., Case No D080972 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 25, 2023) (unpublished), supports a suggestion we have made in numerous past posts:  appeal an original judgment and amended judgments to make

Homeowners Associations: 4/1 DCA Reverses As A Matter Of Law Adverse Fee Awards Against Homeowners Not Prevailing On Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act (OMA) Violations

Cases: Homeowner Associations

Fees Are Not Awardable To Prevailing HOAs Under OMA Violations; Costs Were Not Proper Because Homeowners’ Action Was Not Frivolous, Unreasonable, Or Without Foundation.             In LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Community Assn., Case Nos. D080208/D081204 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 25, 2023) (published), the 4/1 DCA had to decide, for

Trade Secrets, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: One Defendant Obtains Fee Award Of $254,147.40 Under Trade Secrets Fee Shifting Statute, While Another Defendant Denied Fees

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Trade Secrets

Other Defendant Denied Fees For Not Providing Sufficient Substantiation Of Claimed Fees.             In Environmental Logistics, Inc. v. Hayward, Case No. D080515, and Environmental Logistics, Inc. v. Tabush, Case No. D080516 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 25, 2023) (unpublished), two companion cases, Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including three former employees, for interference and trade secret

Assignment, Fee Clause Interpretation: Escrow Company Incorrectly Denied Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees In Real Estate Against Buyer’s Assignee, But No Fee Award Was Proper Against Assignor

Cases: Assignment, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Remand Was In Order For Fee Determination Against Buyer’s Assignee Vis-a-Viz The Escrow Company.             In Sushi KJ Corp. v. Hana Escrow Co., Inc., Case No. B325421 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 24, 2023) (unpublished), a buyer—an assignee of the buyer’s predecessor in interest–sued an escrow company for negligent misrepresentations arising out of a seller’s

Scroll to Top