Author name: Marc Alexander

Deeds Of Trust/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Prevailing Lender Either Did Make Sufficient Demand For Payment Of Fees/Costs Or Demand Requirement Excused

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  $101,380 Fee Award Affirmed in Case Where $220,978.34 Monetary Judgment Was Entered Earlier.      Defendant borrowers lost a judicial foreclosure proceeding, an equitable claim that was bifurcated and heard first by the trial court, to the tune of $220,978.34, plus attorney’s fees and costs based on fee clauses in the operative loan documents. Later, […]

Appealability: Failure To Include Germane Pleadings And Fee Proceeding Papers Precluded Review Of Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Appealability

  Arbitrator’s $351,470 Fee Award Affirmed Due to Inadequate Record on Appeal.      Med-Trans Corp. v. City of California City, Case No. F061553 (5th Dist. May 14, 2012) (unpublished) involved an arbitration referee’s of $351,470 in fees and costs after prevailing City defensed a fraud and contractually based claim of plaintiff. (City had requested an

Happy Birthday to Us

Off Topics

  4 Years, Wow!      To all of our readers, thanks for the support, kind words, feedback, and the like. This blog is four years old, dating back to May 11, 2008. Wow! Happy 4th Birthday. Will Clayton, photographer.  flickr creative commons license.

Class Actions/Special Fee Shifting Statute/In The News . . . . $1,468,380 In Attorney’s Fees Awarded Against Losing 14 Named Class Members In California Automobile Sales Finance Act Case

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

       Here is an interesting one you do not see too often–named class members having to pay attorney’s fees to the winning defendant.      On May 9, 2012, MMD Newswire posted that Raceway Ford, Inc. was awarded $1,468,380 in attorney’s fees plus costs as against 14 named class members, jointly and severally, in an

Sanctions: $13,250 CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed Where Trial Court Did Not Indicate That Withdrawn Sanctions Motion Was Frivolous Or Without Merit

Cases: Sanctions

  Lack of Findings on Withdrawn Sanctions Motion Was Critical to Reversal.      In Sverdlin v. Yollin, Case No. B234184 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 10, 2012) (unpublished), defendant/defendant’s attorneys appealed a CCP § 128.7(c)(1) sanctions award [the equivalent of a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11] in favor of plaintiff. Good move by the defense/defense attorneys.     

Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: Fees Spent On Extraneous Matters Not Entitled To Compensation Where Separate Entities And Separate Case Involved

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Case Is One Involving Fee Recovery By Public Agency.      Okay, so a public agency did prevail and recover fees in a dispute in Wilshire Ventures Corp. v. City of San Fernando Redevelopment Agency, Case Nos. B230916/B232924 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 9, 2012) (unpublished). Public agency was entitled to fees under a written

Requests For Admissions: Incurred Attorney’s Fees, Not Just Reasonable Fees, Is The Standard For Cost-Of-Proof Sanctions

Cases: Requests for Admission

  Appellate Court Remands Cause to Lower Court For Purposes of Satisfying This Standard.      Gaskin v. Wegman, Case No. B234124 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 9, 2012) (unpublished) provides a valuable lesson to all litigators and litigants seeking cost-of-proof “sanctions” under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420. (For a short recap, this is

Reasonableness Of Fees: Mandatory Labor Code Fees Awarded To Plaintiff Winning Improper Wage Deduction Of $36,000

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Plaintiff’s Fee Recovery of $291,155 Affirmed, Although 1.5 Requested Multiplier Denied.      Here is one that again shows how small damages can justify fee awards of an exponential nature, in this case over eight times the successful compensatory recovery.      Sciborski v. Pacific Bell Directory, Case No. D056440 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 8,

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: $158,000 Fee Award Is Result To Winning Defendants In Cremation Intermingling Dispute

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  No Apportionment of Fee Work Required Where Both Contract and Tort Claims Encompassed Within a Broad Fees Clause.      Above:  Beware the Jabberwock, my son!  Sir John Tenniel, illustrator.       Beware of the broadly worded fee clause, because it likely will give rise to fee entitlement no matter whether contract or tort theories are

Scroll to Top