Author name: Marc Alexander

SLAPP: $21,506.25 Fee Order For Frivolous SLAPP Motion Reversed When Appellate Court Found SLAPP Motion Had Partial Merit Based On Litigation Privilege

Cases: SLAPP

  Appellate Opinion Also Has Interesting Published Discussion on Tentative Ruling Acquiescence.      In Mundy v. Lenc, Case No. B227962 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 29, 2012) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion not published), disabled plaintiff/cross-defendant litigant and his attorney was hit with a $21,506.25 fee award for bringing a “frivolous” SLAPP motion. (NOTE […]

Indemnity/Substantiation Of Fees: Former Employees Prevailing In Actions Arising Out Of Their Agency Relationship Entitled To Substantial Fee Recoveries Under Indemnity Statute

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Corporations Code Section 317(d) Did Sustain Large Fee Awards Against Non-prevailing Former Employer.      Parcell Steel Co., Inc. v. Sauer, Case No. G043444 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where various defendants (former employees) were awarded substantial attorney’s fees against plaintiff former employer when employer lost confidential use of

Civil Rights: $182,292.75 Attorney’s Fees Award For Frivolous Civil Rights Case Affirmed Against Losing Plaintiff

Cases: Civil Rights

  No Abuse of Discretion, Especially Where Declaration Could Not Be Used To Trump Deposition Testimony in Summary Judgment Proceeding.      For a plaintiff losing FEHA claims in California state court, attorney’s fees can only be awarded against them where the claims are frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or brought in bad faith. (Chavez v. City

Prevailing Party: Trope Prohibition Resulted In Reversal Of $11,115.50 Fee Award In Default Judgment Proceeding

Cases: Prevailing Party

  Court of Appeal Also Chastised Respondent For Relying on Non-California Authorities in Attempting to Sustain Result.      Sadr & Barrera, APLC v. Cyriacks, Case No. D058417 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where an appellate court reversed a Civil Code section 1717 attorney’s fees award to a default judgment

Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Prevailing Parties Under California Voting Rights Act Are Entitled To Fees, But Only Against One Party And 95% Fee Reduction For Inflated Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Only $162,500 In $1.7 Million Requested Fees Were Awarded–A Result Sustained On Appeal.      Rey v. Madera Unified School Dist., Case No. F061532 (5th Dist. Feb. 28, 2012) (certified for publication) is somewhat of a sobering decision, reminding all of us that inflated fee requests can and will be severely discounted by lower courts,

Section 1717: Note Co-Maker Loss On Contractual/Subrogation Claims Gave Rise To Fee Exposure To Other Winning Co-Maker

Cases: Section 1717

  Mutuality Was There, Appellate Panel Rules.      Note co-maker sued another note co-maker regarding repayment of a $500,000 loan to Vineyard Bank. Plaintiff lost this suit to one of the non-settling co-makers, with loser basically arguing that the attorney’s fees clause in the note only really applied to a conventional lender versus note maker

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Tenant Bank’s Summary Judgment Win In Unlawful Detainer Action Entitled It To Fee Recovery Under Civ. Code § 1717

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Trial Court’s Denial of Fees Reversed Because Bank Was Prevailing Party.      Meeker v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. B225289 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2012) (unpublished) illustrates that Civil Code section 1717’s mandate of awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party is indeed obligatory in nature, and that fee award denials–even

In The News …. Bill Nye, The “Science Guy,” Is Attempting To Recoup $57,000 Fee Award Against His Ex-Flame Arising Out of Harassment Order Violations

In The News

       You gotta love this one.      According to TMZ, Bill Nye–the “Science Guy”–is dragging his ex-squeeze, Blair Tindall, into court for supposedly acting as a crazy stalker and then causing him to incur $57,000 in attorney’s fees for enforcing a prior harassment protective order.      The purported facts are this: Mr. Nye claimed

Scroll to Top