Author name: Marc Alexander

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Losing County’s Failure To Comply With Professional Engineer Certificate Of Merit Compliance Requirements Justified $286,835.24 Fee/Costs Award Against It

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  COM Was Defective For Not Indicating County Had Received An Opinion From COM Expert.      Here is a special fee-shifting statute that we have not talked about very often–if at all.      Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35 requires a plaintiff or cross-complainant to file a certificate of merit (COM) from an expert consultant […]

Private Attorney General Statute: Inadequate Record And Failure To Prevail Dooms Vexatious Litigant’s Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Record

       Plaintiff, a vexatious litigant, appealed a trial court’s denial of his fee request under CCP § 1021.5, California’s attorney general statute, after he lost a bid to overturn a Nevada judgment on the grounds it was fraudulently procured.      Plaintiff lost his appeal of the fee denial in Missud v. D.R. Horton, Inc.,

Discovery/Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Reverses $28,181.10 Sanctions Order Under F.R.Civ.P. Rule 45(c)(1)

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Cost Of Complying With Subpoena By Third Party Was Minimal And Subpoena Was Not Issued In Bad Faith Or Was Not Facially Defective      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) allows a district judge issuing a subpoena to award appropriate sanctions, including lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees, against a party or attorney responsible for

Section 1717: Victory On Promissory Estoppel Claim Was Not “On The Contract” For Purposes of 1717 Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717

  However, Defendant’s Beating of Contract Claim Did Give Rise to Fee Recovery.      In Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc., Case No. D060849 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 20, 2012) (published), defendant defeated a plaintiff’s contract claim airising under a bid document containing a fees clause but lost a related promissory estoppel

In The News . . . . Brutal Market For Law School Grads, Law Schools Hit The Brakes, And Pricey Hourly Rates For Top Attorneys

In The News, Rates

       Well, we are approaching the end of the year, and that means some snippets from newspaper articles saved by co-contributor Mike’s father-in-law Tom Basehart. Here you go. Brutal Law Grad Market.      A Wall Street Journal analysis earlier this year found that members of the 2011 law school class had little better than

Section 1717: $23,323.83 Fee Award Remanded For Recalculation Because Contract Claim Did Give Rise To Recovery, But Tort Claims Did Not

Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

  Re-Do Is Result in this One.      Defendants prevailed in a mixed contract/tort cause of action, awarded $23,323.83 in attorney’s fees by the trial court in Choi v. Behrman, Case No. B239288 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 20, 2012) (unpublished). On appeal, the reviewing court determined the matter had to go back for a

Allocation/Costs: Losing Plaintiff Properly Hit With Costs Of $93,369.05 After Not Being Successful In Insurance Dispute

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs

       Losing plaintiff in an insurance dispute must have been agasp when he was hit with a costs award of $93,369.05, although the trial court did lop off one-third of the requested $140,053.58. (The costs mainly included witness fees and deposition costs.)      Plaintiff was not successful in his appeal in Morgan v. Pacific

Scroll to Top