Author name: Marc Alexander

Prevailing Party: Trust Was Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Fees Clause, Even Though It May Not Have Been So Entitled Under Elder Abuse Fee-Shifting Statutes

Cases: Prevailing Party

  Case Demonstrates Trial Court Decisions Will Be Sustained on Any Right Ground Existing in the Record.      In Nesbitt v. Emmanuel, Case No. B224521 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 7, 2012) (unpublished), the trial court awarded both compensatory and punitive damages under the financial elder abuse statutes to a trust. It also awarded attorney’s […]

Section 998: $125,000 998 Offer Was Hardly Token When Defendant Defensed Plaintiff’s Negligence Case On A Summary Judgment In Bizarre Concert Incident

Cases: Section 998

  $18,957 Award of Expert Witness Fees Against Plaintiff Was the Outcome.      The facts in some cases are simply amazing. Cano v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC, Case No. G044751 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 6, 2012) (unpublished) is one of them.      Plaintiff doctor was attending a concert by “The Boss” (Bruce Springsteen) at

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Rules That “Utter Lack Of Proof” Win By Defense In Functionality Case Triggered Exceptional Fee Award Under Lanham Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Except For $83,229.49 Component Sent For Remand Determinations, $836,899.99 Was the Fee Hit Against Losing Plaintiff.      Plaintiff suing for trade dress protection under the Lanham Act lost a functionality-oriented case in Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., Case Nos. 10-17007 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012) (for publication). The

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Rules That “Utter Lack Of Proof” Win By Defense In Functionality Case Triggered Exceptional Fee Award Under Lanham Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Except For $83,229.49 Component Sent For Remand Determinations, $836,899.99 Was the Fee Hit Against Losing Plaintiff.      Plaintiff suing for trade dress protection under the Lanham Act lost a functionality-oriented case in Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., Case Nos. 10-17007 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012) (for publication). The

Arbitration/Costs/Section 998: Where Arbitration Submission Agreement Is Broad, Seek Winning 998 Enhancements From Arbitrator, Not Just The Court

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  Denial of 998 Cost Enhancements Was Not Improper.      Maaso v Signer, Case No. B228314 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 7, 2012) (certified for publication) is one of those lessons for all of us practitioners who arbitrate to take to heart–make sure you check the arbitration submission agreement for breadth of issues, meaning that

Civil Rights/POOF!: $494,714.40 Fee Award Against Roommate Web Sorting Service Vacated Upon Reversal of Summary Judgment/Permanent Injunction Against Litigant

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: POOF!

  No Place Like Home:  FHA/FEHA Restrictions Held Not Applicable to Roommate Selection for Sharing Inside of Living Units.      Roomate.com, LLC, which maintains a website asking questions about sex, sexual orientation, and familial status for individuals seeking roommates, must have been shocked when a district judge granted a summary judgment/permanent injunction based on finding

In The News . . . . California State Senate Approves Bill To Pay $13 Million In Settlement And Court-Ordered Fees In Legal Disputes By State

In The News

  $1 Million of Proposed Appropriation Are Court-Ordered Fees to Winner in Violent Video Game Litigation.      As reported in a January 31, 2012 post in The Sacramento Bee, the California State Assembly has approved Senate Bill 730, which in turn proposes payment of $13 million in settlements and court-ordered attorney’s fees in legal disputes

Arbitration/Employment: Contractual Arbitration Clause Invalidated, Among Other Things, Because Attorney’s Fees Granted To Mere Prevailing Party On FEHA Claims

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Unconscionability

  Employee Won Substantive Unconscionability Argument Based on Absence of Frivolousness Requirement for Employer FEHA Fee Recovery.      Normally under FEHA, a prevailing defendant (usually, an employer) can only recoup fees if it proves that plaintiff employee’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or brought in bad faith. What happens when an employer inserts an

Scroll to Top