Author name: Marc Alexander

Reasonableness Of Fees: $1.11 Million Fee Award To Two Prevailing Defendants, As Against Lloyd’s, Was Found To Be No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Lower Court Reduced Defendants’ Fee Requests By Over $457,720.             Challenging the amount of an attorney’s fees award as an abuse of discretion is a daunting task, given it must be shown the award was irrational or that it shocks a jurist’s conscience.  Appellant could not satisfy this tough standard in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, […]

Section 1717: Denial Of Fees To Prevailing Creditor Was Correct Because Substantive Claims Were Not Based On A Note With A Fee Clause

Cases: Section 1717

Fee Entitlement Found Missing.             In Port Blue LLC v. Perlstein, Case No. B313030 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 27, 2023) (unpublished), the trial judge denied contractual fees under a note to a prevailing creditor.  That result was affirmed on appeal because the rescission, money had/received, and declaratory relief claims were not based on the

Arbitration: $167,315.94 In Attorney’s Fees Under An Arbitration Award Affirmed Where The Arbitration Fees Clause Did Not Prohibit Such A Fees Award And Where The Parties Submitted Fee Issues For Arbitral Resolution

Cases: Arbitration

Acquiescence Was A Key Predicate For Appeal Affirmance.             In Fidelity National Title Co. v. Mehta, Case No. B309988 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 27, 2023) (unpublished), an arbitrator awarded about $440,000 in compensatory damages which were affirmed on appeal (even after reversal of a trial court deletion of consequential damages) and also awarded $167,315.94

Experts, SLAPP: Lower Court Properly Excluded Generalized Expert Opposition Testimony Where Expert Had No Experience With SLAPP Appellate Work

Cases: Experts, Cases: SLAPP

Result Was An Award Of $19,651 In Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Defendant For Defending SLAPP Grant On Appeal.             Spielbauer Law Office v. Midland Funding, LLC, Case No. H049662 (6th Dist. June 26, 2023) (unpublished) is a situation where a prevailing defendant in an anti-SLAPP proceeding successfully defended the result on appeal, leading to the

Section 1717: $19,468.85 Fees Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law Because There Was No Contract With A Fee Clause

Cases: Section 1717

Fee Entitlement Was Missing In This Case.             In Fischer v. Ponce, Case No. B314254 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2023) (unpublished), a party obtained judgment after a demurrer was sustained without leave, a determination affirmed on appeal.  The lower court then granted the prevailing party $19,468.85 in attorney’s fees.  That award was reversed

SLAPP: $23,728 In Attorney’s Fees Award To Prevailing Defendant Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: SLAPP

Defendant Originally Requested $37,400, But Plaintiff Appealed The Reduced Fee Award Anyway.             Plaintiff in Capital Wholesale LLC v. Buehring, Case No. C095879 (3d Dist. June 21, 2023) (unpublished) lost a SLAPP motion which resulted in his complaint being stricken and with the lower court awarding the prevailing defendant $23,728 in attorney’s fees out of

Laffey Matrix, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: Probate Court Properly Lowered Requested Attorney’s Fees For Trust Work Based On Its Knowledge And Experience

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Lower Court Did Not Have to Credit The Laffey Matrix.             Melbostad v. Kasales, Case No. A165361 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 16, 2023) (unpublished) demonstrates how, in California state court cases, a trial court is able to draw upon its own knowledge and experience in determining a reasonable lodestar hourly rate and in determining

Discovery, Judgment Enforcement, Sanctions: Lower Court’s Failure To Include Discovery Sanctions In Post-Trial Judgment Was Not Erroneous

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Sanctions

Discovery Sanctions Was An Independent Monetary Judgment Subject to Post-Judgment Enforcement.             In Marriage of Bush, Case No. G061202 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 15, 2023) (unpublished), a family law judge issued $3,635 in discovery sanctions against wife, but the judge stayed any payment until a trial determined who owed what.  However, the monetary sanction

Private Attorney General: One Intervenor Garners $143,555 In CCP § 1021.5 Fees, While Another Intervenor Not Having A Direct Interest Properly Denied 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

First Intervenor’s Fee Award, However, Was One With A 75% Lodestar Reduction.             In City of Huntington Beach v. State of California, Case No. G061184 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 14, 2023) (unpublished), Huntington Beach lost a constitutional challenge in a mandamus proceeding with the State of California over a series of laws affecting a

Scroll to Top