Author name: Marc Alexander

Civil Rights: $50,858.44 Attorney’s Fees Award To FEHA Prevailing Plaintiff Affirmed Even Though Compensatory Damages Were Only $10,000

Cases: Civil Rights

  Invited Error Doomed Defense Primary Argument on Appeal.      In Alamo v. Practice Mgt. Information Corp., Case No. B230909 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 24, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff prevailed on a complaint alleging California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) violations as well as a state law wrongful termination claim. Plaintiff recovered compensatory damages […]

In The News . . . . Western District Missouri District Judge Indicates Intention To Award Fees Against American Disabilities Act Plaintiff And In Favor Of 12 Businesses For Groundless Suits, And Governor Brown Signs ADA Shakedown Prevention Legislation In

Cases: Civil Rights, In The News

       In a recent order, U.S. District Judge Richard Dorr of the Western District of Missouri ordered American Disabilities Act “serial” plaintiff Connie Stevenson to pay 12 defendants attorney’s fees according to future proof based on her filing 12 groundless complaints against different businesses. District Judge Dorr found she did not have standing based

In The News . . . . Three Surveys Results On 2012 First Year Attorney Salaries, Average Partner/Corporate Attorney Compensation, And Average Lawyer Salaries From Around The Globe

In The News

  NALP Survey Results on First Year Lawyer Compensation.      As reported by Debra Cassens Weiss in a September 20, 2012 post in the on-line version of the American Bar Association Journal, NALP (the Association for Legal Career Professionals) has published survey results of 570 U.S. law firms about the average compensation for first year

In The News . . . . Plaintiff Class Action Attorneys In Federal Avandia Multidistrict Litigation Seek Approval Of $143.75 Million In Attorney’s Fees/Costs

In The News

       As reported by Amaris Elliott-Engel in a September 21, 2012 post at Corporate Counsel, over 150 lawyers from 50 plaintiff law firms are seeking court approval of disbursing up to $143,75 million in attorney’s fees and costs based upon the “common benefit” doctrine in the federal Avandia multidistrict litigation, where 65,000 claims have

Prevailing Party: Defendant In State Court Obtaining Dismissal Of Action Due to Exclusive Federal Court Jurisdiction Entitled To Civil Code Section 1717 Attorney’s Fees As Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Second District Finds Profits Concepts and PNEC Better Reasoned Than Drummond; Federal Court Denial Of Fees Based On No Contract With Fees Clause Did Not Require Different Result.      Interesting procedural issues were at the forefront in Kandy Kiss of California, Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., Case No. B234541 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 21,

In The News/Discovery . . . . Duking It Out In District Court: Boxer Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Ordered To Pay $113,518.50 In Fees To Boxer Emmanuel Pacquiao As Discovery Sanctions For Failing To Attend A Deposition

Cases: Lodestar, In The News

  Lodestar for National Firm Lawyers Representing Athletes Concededly May Be Higher In Nature and Justification.      We can report that U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks of the District of Nevada has filed an interesting discovery sanctions order involving attorney’s fees in Pacquiao v. Mayweather, Case No. 2:09-cv-2448-LRH-RJJ (Doc. 240, filed 9/17/12).      In

Employment: Losing Plaintiff Employees Are Not Subject To Fee Exposure On Split Shift Claim But Prevailing Defendant Can Recover Fees On Successfully Defending Reporting Time Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment

  Defense Allocation Required on Remand–First Published Decision Interpreting Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection.      To our knowledge, Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, Case No. 231142 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 20, 2012) (published) is the first published decision to apply Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (2012) [discussed in our May 1,

Eminent Domain/POOF!: $233,750 Litigation Expense Award To Condemnee Under Conditional Dismissal Order Goes POOF When Order Is Vacated

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

  Appellate Court Decides that Conditional Dismissal Order Issuance Was Error.      Council of San Benito County Governments must be sighing with relief based on the appellate court vacating a conditional dismissal in an eminent domain proceeding. In Council of San Benito County Governments v. Hollister Inn, Inc., Case No. H036629 (6th Dist. Sept. 19,

Scroll to Top