Author name: Marc Alexander

Prevailing Party: Second District, Division 1 Adopts Bright-Line Test That “Of Counsel” Attorney Successfully Representing Firm Not Entitled To Recoup Fees For Firm Under Trope Prohibition

Cases: Prevailing Party

  Close of Relationship Between Firm and “Of Counsel” Found Dispositive.      Presiding Justice Mallano, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of the Second District, Division 1, adopted a bright-line test in Sands & Associates v. Juknavorian, Case No. B232686 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 10, 2012) (published). The appellate court decided that a firm […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: District Court’s Denial Of Fees To Successful Plaintiff In BLM Grazing Permit Dispute Was Justified Under EAJA

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Post-Fire Crisis Management Decisions Justified BLM’s Grazing Permit Position, Even Though Found Ultimately Unsuccessful.      Western Watersheds Project v. Ellis, Case No. 11-35464 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2012) (published) involved an attorney’s fees dispute that, as the Ninth Circuit observed early on in its opinion, “added a rancorous coda to long-running grazing permit litigation

Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court’s Award Of Fees Of $575,000 (Out Of Requested $1.4 Million) And Another $187,000 To Bank No Abuse of Discretion

Reasonableness of Award

  No Need For Independent Fee Expert Scrutiny, Because Trial Judge Can Do It.      Here is an interesting reasonableness of fees challenge made on appeal to our local Santa Ana appellate court in Yeskin v. Pacific Mercantile Bank, Case No. G045361 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary

Costs/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Quantum Meruit Is Not “On A Contract” Under Section 1717 And Prevailing Attorney Entitled To Routine Costs, But Not Fees Under Ambiguous Fees Clause

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Section 1717

       In Siciliano v. Singh, Case Nos. E052352/E053582 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), one attorney won quantum meruit fees based on a voided contingency fee agreement, with both client and attorney seeking recovery of attorney’s fees and costs (even though, ultimately, attorney did beat out–barely–a CCP § 998 offer once routine

News . . . 2011 Survey Shows General Counsel’s Reasons For Terminating Outside Counsel; Florida Couple Wins 11 Year Law Resodding Litigation Battle After Spending $220K In Fees/Costs, And 2011 Top 100 U.S. Firm Gross Revenues

In The News

  Acritas Survey on 2011 General Counsel Reasons for Dropping Outside Counsel Reports Results.      Debra Cassens Weiss, in an October 2, 2012 post at the ABA Journal, informs us that Acritas, a UK-based market research firm, conducted a phone survey of a couple thousand general counsel in about 45 countries, asking them about terminating

Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717/Settlement: Plaintiff Breaching Settlement Agreement With Fees Clause Gets Hit With $110,000 In Attorney’s Fees Even Though Specific Settlement Judge Refused To Hear Post-Settlement Fee Motion

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Fees Were Less Than Requested Based on Defendants’ Excessive Litigation Style, But Were Justified Because Plaintiff Did Everything Possible Not To Pay Under the Settlement.      Civil Code section 1717 fee proceedings are equitable in nature. Don’t think for one moment that trial judges presiding over fee motions do not factor in each side’s

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Defeating Cross-Complaint Via Summary Judgment Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Award As Prevailing Party Even Though Its Complaint Against Defendant Not Resolved But Reclassified As Limited Civil Action

Cases: Prevailing Party

  $56,100 Fee Award Affirmed In Dispute Over $10,171.26 Receivable Based on Fees Clause in Parties’ Contract.      Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems, USA, Inc., Case No. B231667 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 4, 2012) (published) goes to show you how even minor disputes can produce exponentially greater fee awards for the

Family Law: $10,000 Section 271 Sanctions Award Reversed Because Reasonable Position Was Taken, Husband Was Ill, And His Financial Position Did Not Justify Award

Cases: Family Law

       Marriage of De Monbrun, Case No. B236130 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished) involved a husband’s challenge to a $10,000 sanction awarded to wife under Family Code section 271. Husband did well to appeal, gaining a reversal on appeal.      Section 271 is not meant to incorporate the “English rule” into

Section 1717: Contract Attorneys Paid Independently Satisfy Trope Standard, And Personal Liability Claims Against Defendant Proving He Was Not Client Did Trigger Fee Recovery–Both Under 1717

Cases: Section 1717

       Soni v. CH&I Technologies, Inc., Case No. B235130 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished) was a very contested donnybrook between an attorney and his former client, in which the president was also sued on the theory he was personally liable under the retainer agreement. Attorney won against former client corporation, garnering

Scroll to Top