Author name: Marc Alexander

Sanctions: $5,771.25 Sanctions Against Plaintiff And Her Attorney Under CCP § 128.5 On A Local Issues Conference Affirmed As To Attorney, But Reversed As To Client

Cases: Sanctions

Client Had No Clear Notice Of A Violation.             Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, regrettably, had to author a 4/3 DCA opinion on a $5,771.25 sanctions award against plaintiff and her attorney relating to a dispute on whether a local pre-trial issues conference had to be held in-person or remotely.  (The trial court concluded that plaintiff […]

Allocation: In CFRA/Other Claims Case, Plaintiff’s Winning Only 2 Of 7 Claims On Appeal Required A Remand To Recalculate Fee Recovery

Cases: Allocation

Apportionment Principles Are To Be Considered On Remand.             In Buckman v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B305192 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 2, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a compensatory verdict of $288,306.23 on 4 out of 7 claims, including a California Family Rights Act (CFRA) claim giving rise to fee entitlement.  Plaintiff requested

Section 998: Defense Was Not Exposed To Substantial Prejudgment Interest Or Expert Fees In Rejecting Plaintiffs’ CCP § 998 Offers After Plaintiffs Received Substantial Jury Verdicts Well Over The 998 Offers

Cases: Section 998

Multiple Offers With No Separate Acceptance Lines Was Invalid.             CCP § 998 offers involve very careful planning.  Multiple offers and acceptance line principles often will derail offers made with the best intentions.  Little v. Singh, Case No. F083989 (5th Dist. July 31, 2023) (unpublished) illustrates these lessons well.             There, plaintiffs obtained a substantial

Discovery, Sanctions: Litigant’s Response To Document Requests Does Not Need To Specify Which Documents Are Responsive

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Discovery Sanctions Were Vacated, With Litigant Also Substantially Complying With Document Production Requirements.             Plaintiff and his counsel were sanctioned $910 for misusing the discovery process, in Pollock v. Superior Court (Schuster), Case No. B321229 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 31, 2023) (published), because plaintiff failed to specify what documents were being produced in the

Civil Rights: Class Action Counsel Awarded Over $400,000 In Attorney’s Fees After Settling Constitutional Challenges To Mississippi’s Sodomy Law

Cases: Civil Rights

Fifth Circuit Decision Demonstrates A Smart Move By Class Counsel And How District Judges Will Reduce Lodestar Requests For Clerical Work, Partial Success, And Work On Unsuccessful Motions.             In Doe v. Fitch, No. 22-60481 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023) (per curiam; unpublished), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was reviewing a district court’s award

Private Attorney General: $38,733.75 Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5 To Mobile Home Park HOA And Against Mobile Home Park Owner Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

HOA Was Dismissed On County’s Demurrer Such That It Was Successful, Vindicating A Broader Interest Of Mobile Home Park Residents Throughout The County Because They Needed To Be Part Of The Mobile Park Owner’s Judicial Writ Proceeding Case.             In Pinto Lake M.H.P., LLC v. County of Santa Cruz, Case No. H050374 (6th Dist. July

Civil Rights: $13,943.84 In Costs Was A Negative Award Against A Plaintiff Whose FEHA Case Was Found To Be Frivolous In Nature

Cases: Civil Rights

Appellate Court Also Chided Plaintiffs’ Counsel For A Lack Of Civility.             In Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B317794 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 28, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a FEHA case after demurrer and summary judgment grants.  The lower court found the FEHA claims to be frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless, awarding

Costs: Plaintiff’s Failure To Renew A Tax Costs Motion Taken Off Calendar Resulted In A Modified Judgment Years Later With The Costs Added

Cases: Costs

Plaintiff Did Not Subsequently Renew His Objections At The Trial Level, Meaning The Addition Of Costs Was A Ministerial Act Rather Than A Substantial Amendment to the Judgment.             Max v. Shih, Case No. B322716 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 27, 2023) (unpublished) is a situation which reminds counsel to renew motions to strike costs,

Civil Rights: Defendant Not Entitled To Recover Statutory Fees Where Plaintiff’s ADA Claim Was Dismissed For Lack Of Standing

Cases: Civil Rights

Fees Are Not Allowable Under ADA Fee Statute, But Rule 11 Was Available to Recoup Fees If The Defense Can Prove The Action Was Frivolous.             The Ninth Circuit, in Fernandez v. 23676-23726 Malibu Road, LLC, No. 22-55626 (9th Cir. July 26, 2023) (published), held that an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) plaintiff whose case

Scroll to Top