Author name: Marc Alexander

In The News . . . . Stockton Bankruptcy Getting Pricey And Monrovia Spends $215,000 In Fees/Costs In Unsuccessfully Defending Food Truck Ban

In The News

  Stockton Bankruptcy Case Expected to Clock in at $4.9 Million in Attorney’s Fees To Attorneys Representing City in Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Case.      Scott Smith, in a September 7, 2012 post at Recordnet.com, informs us that Stockton officials expect its Chapter 9 bankruptcy to cost $4.9 million in attorney’s fees for this year, up […]

Section 998: Gerald G. Knapton Has Article With MCLE Credit On Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 in September 2012 California Lawyer

Cases: Section 998

       Gerald G. Knapton, an attorney’s fees expert practicing with Ropers Majeski Kohn Bentley PC in Los Angeles, has an article on Code of Civil Procedure section 998, complete with MCLE credit upon taking the accompanying written test, which can be found in the September 2012 edition of the California Lawyer.       Aside from

Indemnity/Interpretation Of Fees Clauses: Denial Of Fee Recovery To Title Company’s Assignee Was Proper Because Dispute Did Not Involve Escrow Dispute

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

       Title company assigns its rights to collect attorney’s fees to two assignees based upon a provision indemnifying it as an escrow holder, inclusive of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The lower court denied the assignees’ fee request, determining that the facial language in the indemnification clause did not apply because a prior case

Family Law: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees Was Correct Given Trial Court’s Interpretation Of The Marital Settlement Agreement As Not Encompassing Stock Options As A Bonus Based On Performance

Cases: Family Law

  Wife Lost Bonus and Fees Dispute.      In Schnopp v. Schnopp, Case No. B236111 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 5, 2012) (unpublished), wife lost the merits of her claim that stock options based on performance constituted a bonus for which additional child support compensation was due, The trial court found that marital settlement agreement

Employment/POOF!: Labor Code Section 218.5 Fee Award To Employer In Class Action Case Vacated Based Upon Reversal Of Summary Adjudication On Vacation Benefit Pay Claim

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

  $120,000 Fee Award Went POOF!      Labor Code section 218.5 requires a fee award to the prevailing party in any action brought for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, except an action for which fees are recoverable under section 1194 and certain other actions. Employer obtained summary

Allocation/Special Fee Shifting Statute/Taxation: Prevailing Real Property Taxpayer Properly Awarded $70,806.71 Under Revenue And Taxation Code Section 1611.6

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Taxation

  Government Code Section 800 Cap Does Not Apply to Section 1611.6 Awards.      Acting Presiding Justice Moore, in a 3-0 decision in Villa San Clemente LLC v. County of Orange, Case No. G04984 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2012) (unpublished), dealt with a $70,806.71 attorney’s fees award under Revenue and Taxation Code section

Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: Neighborhood Squabble Resulting In Injury To Dog Results In $ 93,780 Fee Award Based On Breach Of Prior Settlement Agreement

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Fourth District, Division 3 Also Holds that a Pet Owner May Recover For Mental Suffering Cause By a Trespass Injuring or Killing Owner’s Animal.       Co-contributors Marc and Mike like this one, because they both have dogs—Marc has Watson and Mike has Riffle.      The Fourth District, Division 3 in Plotnik v. Meihaus, Case

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Defeating A Motion To Compel Arbitration Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Until Underlying Contract Case Resolved

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Compel Arbitration and U.S. Supreme Court Cert Petition Fees Reversed, Based on Frog Creek Partners.      It will not come as a surprise that Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 206 Cal.App.4th 515 (1st Dist., Div. 5 2012) will make our Top 20 List at the end of the year. Several appellate

Scroll to Top