Author name: Marc Alexander

Employment: Second District, Division 3 Holds That Fee Award For Wage/Hour/Itemized Wage Statement Violations Is Payable To Attorney, Not Client, Unless Fee Agreement Provides Otherwise

Cases: Employment

  Appellate Court Issues Mandate in Favor of Attorney Over $300,000 Labor Code Fee Award.      The Second District, Division 3, in Henry M. Lee Law Corp. v. Superior Court (Chang), Case No. B235305 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 16, 2012) (certified for publication), decided that a $300,000 fee award under Labor Code wage/hour/itemized wage […]

Appeal Sanctions: Don’t Mess Around On Appeal–Otherwise, Pay A Lot Of Fees May Result On Remand And Attorneys Maybe Get Disciplined

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

  Appellate Courts Are Not Messing Around With Frivolous Appeals.      Cowabunga, appellate (surf) fans. This next one is bound to be quoted on the topic of frivolous appeals. Here are the beginning lines: “Some appeals are filed to delay the inevitable. This is such an appeal. It is frivolous and was ‘dead on arrival’

Deadlines/Pro Per Representation: Losing Party Not Entitled To Costs Because Filed Too Late, Not Entitled To Fees Based On Pro Per Representation

Cases: Deadlines

       Deadlines/Pro Per Representation: Losing Party Not Entitled To Costs Because Filed Too Late, Not Entitled To Fees Based On Pro Per Representation        Although losing defendants probably did not prevail to begin with, their appeal of a lower court’s denial of fees and costs was rebuffed in Connolly v. Trabue, Case No.

Eminent Domain/Settlement: Condemnee Was Paid Promised Litigation Expenses Under Settlement Agreement At Trial Level

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: Settlement

  However, Remand Was Necessary to Fix His Litigation Expenses on Appeal.      Department of Transportation reached a settlement with condemnee for a right of way purchase under which DOT agreed to pay a certain sum inclusive of interest, fee, and costs. DOT paid. Condemnee, not satisfied, filed a costs memorandum claiming $38,957.50 in costs

Consumer Statutes/Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court Awarding $6,245.54 Of Settling Consumer’s Requested $35,287.46 In Fees Under Consumer Legal Remedies Act Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Lower Court Could Conclude Consumer’s Requested Fees Were Padded in Making Reduced Award.      Plaintiff consumer reached a settlement with Sears, Roebuck for a gift card dispute under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, preserving the ability to seek reasonable fees and costs from the lower court under the compromise. (CLRA does have a fee-shifting

Assignment/POOF!: Limited Partner’s Assignment Of His Fraud Claim Did Not Pass Rights Under Limited Partnership Agreement To Assignee So That He Could Obtain The Benefit Of Fee Clause Recovery

Cases: POOF!

  $1.34 Million Fee Award Went POOF!      Miske v. Bisno, Case Nos. A127596 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 12, 2012) (partially published, including fee discussion) is an interesting case where the defrauded limited partner was treated as an innocent third party which produced a $1.4 million fraud compensatory verdict result. The defrauded

Appeal Sanctions: Price Is Going Up For Frivolous Appeal Exposure

Uncategorized

  Up:  First District, Division 1 Imposes $16,257 Against Ex-Husband.      The First District, Division 1 demonstrates that the price for prosecuting a frivolous appeal has gone up: in Marriage of Kononchuk and Mouradian, Case No. D058615 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 13, 2012) (unpublished), ex-husband was sanctioned $16,257 by the appellate court for a

Probate/Reasonableness Of Fees/Substantiation Of Fees: Lower Court Award Of Fees, Before Prior Appellate Decision Reviewing Compensatory Award, Had To Be Reversed When Appeals Court Substantially Scaled Back Compensatory Award

Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Scaling Back to One Fifth Meant that a Fee Fixing Remand Was Necessary.      Here is a very pragmatically-based decision from our local Fourth District, Division 3 appellate court, dealing with a situation where a lower court fixed fees on the premise that a higher compensatory award was in play when a prior appellate

Fee Clause Interpretation: Subcontractor Defeating General Contractor’s Cross-Defense Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Broadly Worded Fee Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Subcontractor Prevailed, With Dismissal of Protective Cross-Complaint Being Inconsequential.      The Second District, Division 6, in Toro Enterprises v. Pavement Recycling, Case No. B234627 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 9, 2012) (unpublished), reversed a trial court’s denial of an attorney’s fees award to a subcontractor which defensed general contractor’s cross-complaint against it on summary

Pending Cases: Kirby Argued, With California Supreme Court Justices Sounding Skeptical That Meal/Rest Break Claims Give Rise To Plaintiff Fee Exposure Under Labor Code Section 1194

Cases: Cases Under Review

Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection       For those of you following Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Case No. S185827, there is an interesting article by Cynthia Foster in an March 6, 2012 post from The Recorder (Essential California Legal Content). The article suggests that the California Supreme Court appears wary from the flow of the

Scroll to Top