Author name: Marc Alexander

Probate/Reasonableness Of Fees: 40% Contingency For Successful Settlement For Disabled Worker Sustained By Appellate Court

Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Intermediate Court Actually Reverses Trial Court Cut in Fee Award to Attorney, Citing Excellent Result and Extraordinary Work of Attorney.      Here is one that we do not see that often.      At the lower court level, an attorney had a 40% contingency fee agreement to represent a disabled, mentally incompetent worker who suffered […]

In The News . . . . More Than $3.2 Million Is Fee/Expense Award To Attorneys Successfully Suing Orange County To Make Jails More Accessible To The Disabled

In The News

  Three Groups of Attorneys Gain Award, But No Multiplier Awarded.      Salvador Hernandez reports, in a March 7, 2012 article in The Orange County Register, that U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins (C.D. Cal.) awarded more than $3.2 million in attorney’s fees and expenses to three groups of attorneys who successfully sued Orange County to

Interpretation Of Fee Clauses: Settlement Agreement Plus Integrated Other Documents With Fees Clauses Establish Fee Entitlement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

  Integration Doctrine Sustained Fee Award.      Wyatt v. Wyatt, Case No. D058493 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 6, 2012) (unpublished)–yep, today we have a lot of family dispute cases, with this one being between mother and son over mother’s house–resulted in an attorney’s fees award under a settlement agreement in favor of mom and

Bankruptcy/Sanctions: No Immediate Appeal Of District Court Sitting In Bankruptcy’s Sanctions Order Under F.R.B.P. 11 Or Under District Court’s Inherent Powers

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Sanctions

  Dissenting Justice Would Reconsider Hawaii Corp. Rule.      In Klestadt & Winters, LLP v. Cangelosi, Case Nos. 10-16970 et al. (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, determined that Rule 11/inherent powers sanctions orders against a client and their attorneys by a district court sitting in bankruptcy

Judgment Enforcement: Acknowledge Satisfaction Of Judgment And Then Appeal Underlying Judgment Error–Or Suffer The Fate Of Owing Attorney’s Fees For Losing Appeal After Not Satisfying Judgment

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Fate Is In Your Hands, Oh Judgment Creditor Appealing Judgment Offset Order Under CCP § 473–Acknowledge Satisfaction or Risk Fees.      The First District, Division 1 in Zocca v. Zocca, Case No. A130701 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 6, 2012) (unpublished)–think this is a family rite/fight, and you are right, being the latest appeal

Co-Contributor Marc Launches Blawg About California Mediation and Arbitration

Off Topics

ADR:  More Dog, Less Tail?      Co-contributor Marc has launched a new blawg:  California Mediation and Arbitration at http://www.calmediation.org.       The purpose of this blawg is to provide a current and ongoing discussion of California case law and developments concerning mediation and arbitration — the two most common varieties of “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR). This

Allocation/Deeds Of Trust/Prevailing Party: Real Estate Seller Lienholders Did Prevail Ultimately In Judicial Foreclosure/Accounting Actions

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Prevailing Party

  $332,697.80 Fee Award Resulted From Fee Clauses In Trust Deed/Promissory Note For 5 Year Old-Plus Litigation Over Sellers’ Carryback Loan.      Goradia v. Vega, Case No. B228128 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 5, 2012) (unpublished) again demonstrates that the “prevailing party” determination under Civil Code section 1717 is a pragmatic one, with trial and

Eminent Domain: Government Entity Accepting Property Owners’ Final Demand Several Days Before Trial Cannot Be Exposed To Litigation Expenses Award Under CCP § 1250.410

Cases: Eminent Domain

  Ruling Requires Reversal of Litigation Expenses Award, $57,224.50 Of Which Was Attorney’s Fees.      People ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Superior Court (Menigoz), Case No. C069391 (3d Dist. Mar. 1, 2012) (certified for publication) is one for our eminent domain readers.      In this one, DOT accepted property owners’ final demand of $189,000

Scroll to Top