Author name: Marc Alexander

Costs/Equity/Section 998: Second District, Division 6 Affirms Judicial Referee Split And Determination That 998 Offers From Plaintiffs Were Valid For Awarding Costs To Plaintiffs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 998

       In a construction defect matter, both sides appealed after a trial court found that judicial referee costs should be split consistent with a judicially-filed stipulation and after making an award of certain statutory costs to plaintiffs after finding that their CCP § 998 offers were valid.      Both sides were disappointed after the […]

Probate: Attorney Trustee Does Receive Judicial Acknowledgment That $213,274.18 In Fees Incurred In Defending His Trustee’s Actions Were Justified

Cases: Probate

  Sixth District Has a Nice Discussion of Probate Code Provisions Allowing Fee Recovery in Trust Administration Activities (Even After Trustee Is Discharged).      Estate of Gill, Case No. H03629 (6th Dist. May 4, 2012) (unpublished) is a case where an attorney son trustee had to fight some trust administration diversion claims brought by two

Prevailing Party/Section 1717/Section 998: Unlicensed Alarm Company Subject To Fee Exposure After Losing To Customer Under Contract With Fee Clause

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Also, Customer Sent 998 Offer Not Beaten by Alarm Company.      Justice Fybel, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local Santa Ana appellate court in Emergency Technologies, Inc. v. Garcia, Case No. G045685 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2012) (unpublished), affirmed a $41,162 fee award to a customer arising out of

Fees As Damages/Allocation: Fifth District Rules That Attorney’s Fees Expended To Clear Title Are Compensable Slander Of Title Damages Where Slander Contained In Recorded Instrument

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fees as Damages

  Dicta in Decision May Be Broader, But No Apportionment Required.      For all of you real estate buffs out there, we report on the Fifth District’s 76-page decision in Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Assn. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC, Case No. F058617 (5th Dist. Apr. 2, 2012) (certified for partial publication, slander of title fee

Allocation/Section 1717: Even Though Two Distinct Contracts Existed (With Only One Subject To A Fees Clause), All Fees Were Recoverable Because Work Related To Defensing The Nonrecoverable Oral Contract Claim Was Essential To Resolving The Recoverable Wri

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  No Allocation Required, Resulting in Affirmance of $318,469.82 Fee Award Where Jury Awarded Winner $71,443 In Compensatory Damages.     Rens Masonry, Inc. v. Luca Properties, Inc., Case No. D057698 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 1, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting decision which affirmed a $318,469.32 fee award to the winning plaintiff contractor after the

In The News . . . . Idaho U.S. Magistrate Judge Rules DOJ Must Pay $2.24 Million in Fees And Costs To Plaintiffs’ Counsel In Dispute Over Property Worth $883,000

In The News

      We thank The Blog of Legal Times for pointing us to a recent article in The National Law Journal on a fees/costs ruling in an Idaho federal case.      There, an Idaho U.S. magistrate judge recently ruled that Department of Justice would pay $2.24 million in legal fees and costs to plaintiffs’ attorneys

Arbitration/Estoppel: Judicial Estoppel Puts The Kabosh On Appeal Claiming Fees Clause Did Not Cover Fees Incurred In Court Proceedings To Confirm Arbitration Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Estoppel

  Court of Appeal Was Not Pleased With Appellant’s Inconsistent Positions.       Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine aimed at preventing litigants from taking two totally inconsistent positions in different phases of litigation–or prevent “playing fast and loose” with the judicial system or “gaming the system” by taking such inconsistent positions. (Uhrich v. State Farm

Fees Clause Interpretation/Indemnity: Toro Enterprises Decision Now Published

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

       In our April 11, 2011 post, we discussed Toro Enterprises, Inc. v. Pavement Recycling Systems, Inc., a Second District, Division 6 unpublished decision in which a subcontractor recovered attorney’s fees against a general contractor under a broadly-worded fee clauses relating to “dispute resolution.” We can now report that this decision was certified for

Scroll to Top