Author name: Marc Alexander

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: HOA’s $139,977 Attorney’s Fees Award, Made After Homeowners Dismissed Their Lawsuit Without Prejudice And Did Not Pursue Arbitration Before The Case Dismissal, Was Properly Granted

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

“Prevailing Party” Definition Under Davis-Stirling Act Different Than Under Civil Code § 1717.             In Matus v. Freedom West Homes Corp., Case No. A165736 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2023) (unpublished), a group of homeowner plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against HOA, which was ordered into arbitration.  Plaintiffs dismissed their court case without prejudice 15 […]

Family Law: $100,000 Section 271 Sanctions Award Affirmed Where Ex-Wife Refused Three Pretrial Settlement Offers And A Post-trial Offer Which Were All Favorable To Her

Cases: Family Law

Ex-Husband Had To Spend $208,000 To Prepare For And Engage In Trial.             Marriage of Prunchunas, Case Nos. B319493 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2023) (unpublished) is a situation where a lower court imposed $100,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions against ex-wife where she rejected four favorable settlement offers by ex-husband,

Costs, Default Judgments, Multipliers, Paralegal Time: $709,620 In Attorney’s Fees Entered As Part Of A Default Judgment After Entry of Terminating Sanctions Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Default Judgments, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Paralegal Time

Complaint Did Not Have To Plead An Exact Amount Of Fees; 3.0 Positive Multiplier Appropriate; PAGA Settlement Administration Expenses/Paralegal and Legal Assistant Expenses Properly Allowed As Routine Costs.             Haaverson v. Tavistock Freebirds, LLC, Case No. A164043 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 18, 2023) (unpublished) is an interesting opinion which explores whether a complaint needs

Section 1717: Plaintiff’s Dismissal Of Lawsuit Predicated On Overpayment Under Notes With A Contractual Fee Clause Did Not Give Rise To Civil Code § 1717 Exposure

Cases: Section 1717

$20,041.50 Defense Fee Award Under Section 1717 Reversed As A Matter Of Law.             In Shetty v. Doshi, Case No. B321391 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 17, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff brought an action claiming he overpaid on a promissory note and was subject to a usurious interest, although also bringing Financial Code and unfair competition

Private Attorney General: Denial of CCP § 1021.5 Fees To Prevailing Short-Term Rental Plaintiff Justified On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Did Not Satisfy The Financial Incentive Statute Standards—Too Much Skin In The Game.             In Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, Case No. B314744 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 15, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff won a short-term rental dispute against the Manhattan Beach, but lost a remand request for attorney’s fees under the private attorney

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $167,400 Fee Contempt Recovery To California Regional Water Quality Control Board Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Entitlement Was Established.             Just to show you that we post on arcane issues, we refer you to Cal. Regional Water Quality Control v. Balcom Ranch, Case No. B311434 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 15, 2023) (unpublished).  There, the Water Board was awarded with a contempt fee recovery under Government Code § 11455.20 and CCP

Civil Rights, Lodestar, Multipliers: 4/3 DCA Affirms Majority Of $4.053 Million Civil Rights Fee Award To Prevailing Plaintiff, Remanding Solely For A Study Of Hourly Rates Submitted By Three Attorneys

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Case Has Interesting Discussions of Civil Rights Lodestar, Multipliers, Hourly Rate Review, and Pro Hac Vice Delayed Admission Principles.             Presiding Justice O’Leary authored Nachtrieb v. County of Orange, Case No. G060294 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 11, 2023) (unpublished), which is a must read for civil rights litigators when it comes to supporting and

Consumer Statutes: Lee v. Cardiff Now Published

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Dealt With Fee Denial Under Swimming Pool Fee-Shifting Statute.             On July 16, 2023, we posted on Lee v. Cardiff, Case No. A163817 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 13, 2023), which was unpublished at the time and dealt with an attorney’s fees denial because a plaintiff did not prevail on a statutory swimming pool fee-shifting

Family Law: A Two-Fer—Appellate Courts Affirm Family Code §§ 2030, 271 Fee Awards In Two Different Family Law Matters—Earning Capacity And Lots Of Litigation Activity Justified The Awards

Cases: Family Law

Marriage of Hearn, Case No. A162932 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 10, 2023) (published)–$20,000 needs-based fee award to ex-wife under section 2030 was affirmed for two principal reasons:  (1) although unemployed now, ex-husband—an attorney—had superior future earning capacity than ex-wife had; and (2) ex-husband had vigorously represented himself in the dissolution case, while wife had

Scroll to Top