Author name: Marc Alexander

Section 1717/Equity: Individual Defendant’s Recovery Of Fees Against Plaintiff Reversed Because Instrument Cancellation Claim Is Not “On A Contract”

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 1717

  Claim Is Equitable in Nature, Not Triggering Section 1717 Exposure.      In Gibson v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Case No. A133721 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished), a lower court awarded attorney’s fees to an individual defendant on a cancellation of instrument claim based on the notion that it was an […]

Costs/Deadlines: Trial Court Can Weigh Prejudice In Deciding Whether To Enforce Costs Memordandum Filing Requirements

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines

  Costs Award Affirmed, With Appearance Fee In Motion to Quash Proceeding Properly Awarded.      Plaintiffs were bummed when the lower court awarded $23,750.12 in costs to some defendants winning a motion to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction. They appealed, mainly arguing that defendants exceeded the 15 day deadline for filing a costs

Deadlines/Eminent Domain: Inverse Condemnation Fee Awards To Plaintiffs Affirmed After Trial Court Allowed Supplemental Briefing

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Eminent Domain

  Argument Not Raised Below and No Abuse of Discretion Anyway.      Warren v. City of Compton, Case No. B235001 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 1, 2012) (unpublished) involved a situation where two respective plaintiffs won compensatory damages against City for water leaks and then were separately awarded $109,900 and $93,619 in attorney’s fees under

Employment/Section 998: Overtime/Holiday Pay Wait Time Penalties Are A Form Of Wages, Not Costs, And Prejudgment Interest Is Not A Cost Such That These Components Properly Added To Compensatory Damages For Purposes Of Determining If Plaintiff Beat CCP &se

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

  Plaintiff Did Beat 998 Offer When These Components Added to Damages, Justifying An Award of $158,822.85 In Discrimination/Wage and Hour Case Where Base Compensatory Damages Were $21,270.88.      As we know from studying cases under the “Employment” category, FEHA and certain Labor Code provisions have mandatory fee-shifting provisions, especially ones tilted in favor of

SLAPP/POOF!: Reversal Of SLAPP Grant Means Fee Award Goes POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

       A prevailing cross-defendant in a SLAPP proceeding garnered successful fee awards of $7,834.75 and $3,953 against the cross-complainant. However, Peng v. Hong Sang Market, Inc., Case Nos. A133044/A134394 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2012) (unpublished) demonstrates what happens when the appellate court determines that the SLAPP order should have been denied. What

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Private Attorney General: Second District, Division 6 Issues Double, Double Decisions Of Interest To Mobilehome and Election Law Attorneys

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Freeman v. Vista de Santa Barbara Associates, Case No, B232845 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 26, 2012) (Unpublished)      In this case, plaintiff prevailed in a Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) action about rental control where $12,934 in damages were won. She made a motion for attorney’s fees under a mandatory MRL fee-shifting clause (Civ.

Assignment: Court Of Appeal Found No Assignment Of Claims To Cross-Defendant, Simply Lien Claim, For Fee Exposure Analysis–No Go, So To Speak

Cases: Assignment

Details, Details      Tri Valley Land Development, Inc. v. Turner Ranch Family Dairy, Case No. F061515 (5th Dist. Sept. 25, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where fee exposure turned on whether an assignment of claims was made to a certain cross-defendant. This case carefully tells attorneys to carefully review assignment/lien documents, because the appellate court

Scroll to Top