Author name: Marc Alexander

Indemnity/Judicial Estoppel: Defense Fee Denial Request Affirmed … Defense Based Erroneous Recovery On A True Indemnity Clause, Not A True Fees Clause

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Indemnity

  Style and Substance of Indemnity Provision Supported the Denial Result, With Judicial Estoppel Argument Based on International Billing Services Not Prevailing.      Ni v. Yuan, Case No. B2347744 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 31, 2012) (unpublished) is yet another decision where defendants appealed a fee denial order, only to be affirmed because the defense […]

Indemnity/Section 1717: Prevailing Alter Ego Defendant Awarded $134,469.36 On Contract Claim, But Properly Not Allowed Fee Recovery On Fraud Claim

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

  Fourth District, Division 1 Questions Validity of Hilltop Decision.      A prevailing alter ego defendant was awarded $134,469.36 out of a requested $353,047.50 in attorney’s fees based on Civil Code section 1717 and the Reynolds case [one of our Leading Cases], but was denied recovery of fees for successfully defending on a fraud claim

Eminent Domain: Defendant Winning Notice Issue In Eminent Domain Complicated Action Denied Litigation Expense Reimbursement Because Case Was Taken On Contingency

Cases: Eminent Domain

  4/2 Appellate Court Found Salton Bay Marina Persuasive on the Issue.      Although way too complicated to discuss in full, defendant lost but also won some aspects (including obtaining a reversal on a taking issue) in a complex eminent domain case. Among other things, plaintiff water district had to conditionally dismiss at one point

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Obtaining Summary Judgment Based On Laches In Copyright Case Denied Sanctions And Fee Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Plaintiff’s Attempt to Distinguish Existing Precedent Not Done In Bad Faith.      In Petrella v. MGM, Case No. 10-55834 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012) (published), defendant obtained summary judgment based on a laches defense in a copyright case involving plaintiff’s claim that “Raging Bull” was a knock off of her work instead. The district

In The News . . . . Delaware Supreme Court Affirms $304 Million Fee Award To Plaintiffs Representing Minority Shareholders In Grupo Mexico Litigation

In The News

       In our December 30, 2011 post, we reported on the Delaware Chancery Court’s award of $304 million in fees to attorneys representing Southern Cooper in the Grupo Mexico minority shareholder litigation. Well, as updated in an August 28, 2012 post on mineweb.com, the Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed the award, which may be

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Broadly Worded Fee Clauses In Note And Deed Of Trust Meant Former Conservator’s Win Against Lender Resulted In Substantial Fee Award

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  To the Victor, $233,33.75 in Fees, and Lender’s Appeal Did Not Upset Things.     “To the victor belong the spoils.”  Puck.  1914.  Library of Congress.       Lane v. U.S. Bank National Assn., Case Nos. A131087/A132432 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 28, 2012) (unpublished) is a good case for any practitioners needing a discussion of

SLAPP: Homeowner Not Appealing Merits Determination Had No Basis To Challenge Fee Award To Winning HOA

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: SLAPP

  $8,744.50 Fee Award Affirmed on Appeal.      The underlying dispute was a homeowner-homeowner association (HOA) dispute in which defendants represented HOA but homeowner sued the HOA attorneys for legal malpractice. Defendants won a SLAPP motion and were awarded $8,744.50.      Homeowner appealed the adverse result in Kumar v. Robert E. Weiss Inc., Case No.

Scroll to Top