Author name: Marc Alexander

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Absent Interpleader Action, Public Entity Cannot Recover Attorney’s Fees Against Stop Notice Claimant

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $10,974 Fee Recovery to College District Reversed on Appeal.      Okay, real estate fans, we have an attorney’s fees decision in the stop notice area.      In Tri-State, Inc. v. Long Beach Community College Dist., Case No. B231848 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 12, 2012) (certified for publication), the appellate court decided that a […]

Section 998: Nothing In Elder Abuse Statutory Scheme Prevents Costs, As Opposed From Fees, Being Awarded From Rejected 998 Offer

Cases: Section 998

  Costs, Not Fees, Are a Different Animal for Shifting Purposes; Section 998 Given Added Vitality in this Case.      Bates v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, Inc., Case No. B232731 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 12, 2012) (certified for publication) is a sad, but interesting, case on whether unilateral fee-shifting provisions–such as those under California’s elder

Equity/Substantiation Of Fees: $5,000 Fee Award To Winner In Partition Action No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Equity, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Request Made in Verified Trial Brief Did Pass Muster.      This one is interesting for the proof accepted to sustain a $5,000 attorney’s fees award to the winner in a partition action.      Defendant in a partition action challenged a finding that plaintiff was entitled to $5,000 in attorney’s fees as a cost in

Costs/Undertaking: A Little Shy of $180,000 In Appeals Bond Premium Costs Properly Assessed Against Winning Defendant On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Even Though Defendant Did Not Win Total Reversal of Damage Award, Total Costs of Appeals Bond Premium Were Properly Awarded To Defendant For the Appellate Win.      Here is an object lesson for all appellate attorneys in a case: carefully assess whether you want an appeals bond. If you lose in a partially big

Assignment/Section 1711/Probate: Settlement Agreement Did Justify Attorney’s Fees Award Of $51,236.21 Against Petitioners, But Not Against A Nonsignatory

Cases: Assignment, Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Although Controlling the Litigation, Nonsignatory Had No Rights Assigned Under The Fees-Clause Bearing Settlement Agreement.      Estate of Bennett, Case Nos. G043050 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2011) (unpublished), although a probate action, actually is a Civil Code section 1717 fees clause case, with the fee award affirmed by a 3-0

Deadlines To Appeal/Sanctions: FRCP Rule 11 Sanctions Order Does Not Require A “Separate [Judgment] Document” To Trigger Running Of Normal 30-Day Appeals Period

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Sanctions

  Seventh Circuit Discusses FRCP Entanglement, Does Not Believe Attorney’s Fees Sanctions Orders Are To Be Treated Differently Than Normal Federal Fee Orders.      The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in Feldman v. Olin, No. 11-2722 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2012), tackled a messy federal rules of civil procedure issue relating to whether attorneys

Probate: Personal Representative’s Prior Counsel Did Not Demonstrate That Fees To Successor Counsel Should Be Apportioned For Work Performed

Cases: Probate

  Probate Code, § 10814 Allows For Apportionment, But Prior Counsel Did Not Prove Why Allocation Was Warranted.      Probate Code section 10810 allows an attorney representing the executor of a probate estate to obtain compensation for ordinary services, calculated as a percentage of the estate. Section 10811 allows the attorney additional compensation for extraordinary

SLAPP: $9,019.88 Fee Award To Winning Defendant Was No Fluke

Cases: SLAPP

  Especially Where Lower Court Reduced It Down From $36,000 Request, Although Defendant Will Get More Fees For Winning On Appeal.      Ya gotta be careful what you ask for, especially when a trial court orders much lower statutory fees in a mandatory fee-shifting context. If you lose, you are stuck with the award you

Interpretation of Fee Clauses/POOF!/Section 998: Winning Creditor Obtained $210,000 Fee/Expert Fee Award After Beating Main Defendant’s 998

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 998

  Court Reminds Us About Right 998 Calculus, Sustains Broad Fees Clause Applying To Torts, And POOF!s Another Substantial Fee Award To Another Defendant After Reversing A Without Leave Demurrer.      This next case is amazing in demonstrating how a relatively small loan of $100,000 can result in lots of attorney’s fees/expert fee recoupment to

SLAPP: $20,165.04 Fee Award To Winning Defendants Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: SLAPP

  However, Cautionary Footnote from Appellate Panel Bears Noting for Trial Courts and Practitioners Alike.      Winning SLAPP defendants were awarded $20,165.04 (out of a requested $36,472.04) in attorney’s fees under the mandatory fee-shifting provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.      The appellate court affirmed under the abuse of discretion standard in Mestler

Scroll to Top