Author name: Marc Alexander

Appeal Sanctions/Family Law: $552,153.28 Fee Award Under Family Code Section 271 Affirmed Based On Substantial Evidence In Sixth District Published Decision

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Family Law

  Appellate Frivolous Sanctions Also Awarded Against Appellant/Her Counsel.      Marriage of Wahl and Perkins, Case No. H035712 (6th Dist. Feb. 2, 2012) (certified for publication) is a situation where an ex-wife was ordered to pay $552,153.28 as a fee “sanctions” to ex-husband under Family Code section 271. (For any newbees or anyone who might […]

Deadlines: Bankruptcy Extension Rules Discussed in Attorney’s Fees Motion Filing Context by Second District, Division 6 in Published Decision

Cases: Deadlines

  Fee Claimant, Two Days Too Late, Allowed to Recoup Substantial Fees Given Uncertainty in Bankruptcy Extension/Tolling Rules.      Here is an interesting published decision relating to the deadlines for filing an attorney’s fees motion. The normal deadline, absent stipulation or extension by the trial judge, is governed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)–the

Sanctions: Appellate Trifecta Finally Resolves Significant Sanctions Cases Blogged On In The Past

Uncategorized

  Jneid Cases Finally Come Home to Roost–Expensive Fee/Costs Lesson From Not Producing Electronic Documents Until Trial.      In our December 20, 2009 and September 24, 2011 posts, we did explore the Jneid appeals, where substantial fees/costs orders were appealed for a litigant’s failure to produce electronic documents until trial of a matter. Various appeals

In The News . . . . MGA/Mattel Bratz Doll Litigation Keeps On Giving

In The News

  Evanston Insurance Co./Markel Corp. Lose Two Summary Judgment Motions in January 27, 2012 Pair of Rulings.      In this on-going litigation saga, Evanston Insurance Company and its parent corporation, Markel Corp. lost summary judgment motions on insurance coverage issues relating to their potential responsibility to MGA Entertainment Inc. in the case it won against

Section 998: Defendants’ Successful 998 Offers Were Sufficiently Definite And Beat Plaintiffs’ Recovery Even After Offsets

Cases: Section 998

  998 Offers Do Not Have to Resolve All Claims, Only Those Involving the Offeror and Offeree.      Newport Psychcare v. Windstone Behavioral Health, Inc., Case No. G044449 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 31, 2012) (unpublished) concerned plaintiffs who rejected defendants’ respective CCP § 998 offers to pay some positive moneys ($91,000, $70,000, and $15,000)

Costs/Fees As Damages: Nonspecific Expert Witness/Other Costs In Contractual Fee/Costs Provision Had To Be Pled And Then Proven Before Posttrial Stages

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fees as Damages

  First District, Division 1 May Have Intimated Disagreement With Thrifty Payless in Recent Unpublished Decision.      Way back in our June 23, 2010 post on Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC, 185 Cal.App.4th 1050 (2010), we knew that this case would engender some further judicial feedback. It basically held that expert witness

Allocation/Civil Rights: $645,534 Attorney’s Fees Award To Successful FEHA Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights

  Compensatory Award Was $560,709; 1.5 Fee Multiplier Also Justified.      In the FEHA civil rights area, the law is intentionally designed to confer reasonable attorney’s fees upon winning civil rights plaintiffs and only impose fees against them should the case be shown as frivolous/baseless in nature. The next case illustrates how substantial fee awards

Costs/Section 998: Fourth District, Division 3 Tackles Some Pragmatic Costs-Shifting Issues Arising From Successful 998 Offer

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  Main Holding is that Winning Defendant Can Recoup Expert Fees Paid In Deposing Plaintiff’s Expert.      Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of the Fourth District, Division 3, authored a colorful opinion in the routine costs/section 998 area in Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc., Case No. G044718 (4th Dist., Div.

Retainer Agreements: Medical Malpractice Contingent Fee Agreement Cannot Provide For Non-Refundable Flat Fee In Addition to Statutory Maximum Contingent Fee

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Second District Confirms State Bar Position in One Matter in Unpublished Decision.      In Shalant v. Client Security Fund Commission for the State Bar of California, Case No. B229947 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 30, 2012) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal confirmed for us the State Bar takes the position that Business & Professions

Scroll to Top