Author name: Marc Alexander

Section 998: Costs/Malicious Prosecution Waiver 998 Offer Made One Year Before Expert Witness Discovery In Case With Potential Lage Exposure Was Not Reasonable In Nature

Cases: Section 998

  Fact that Defense Verdict Ultimately Resulted Did Not Change the Analysis.      Here is an interesting unpublished decision in the CCP § 998 area, reinforcing that courts will take a pragmatic approach to gauging “reasonableness” of a 998 offer at the time that it was made–not by hindsight after an “iffy” defense verdict in […]

In the News – City of Vernon’s Legal Bills: Big

In The News

In The News . . . . L.A. Times Article Talks About City Of Vernon’s Legal Bills      Sam Allen and Hector Becerra, in a December 28, 2011 article in the Los Angeles Times, report that the City of Vernon has paid $7 million to Latham & Watkins LLP in 2011, with another $2 million

Private Attorney General Statute: Plaintiff Properly Denied Fee Recovery Where Reversal Of Prior Sanctions Award Had No Causal Connection To Subsequent Governmental Action Relating To Church

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Scholarly Unpublished Decision Shows Several Elements of CCP § 1021.5 Not Met.      This one presented an interesting factual situation in which the Fifth District had no difficulty in affirming a lower court’s denial of fees to a plaintiff under California’s private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5.      Sanctuary Merced v. Central Presbyterian

Arbitration/Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly-Worded Fee Clause Allowed Litigants Successfully Asserting Third Party Claims To Recoup Fees Against Arbitration Winner In Post-Arbitration Judicial Proceedings

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  $74,124 in Fees/$1,529.40 to Successor Trustees Were the Winning Awards.      Portico Management Group, LLC v. Harrison, Case No. C062060 (3d Dist. Dec. 28, 2011) (unpublished) is a chilling opinion–forget that it is the Holidays that are not as chilly in California as other areas of the country–both about making sure proper parties are

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Attorney Garnering Large Fee Award Lost It On Appeal Because Losing LLC Members Could Not Collect Fees From Him

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  $178,000 Fee Award Went POOF!      De novo review of a fees clause can be trouble for any litigant, appellant or respondent, on appeal. This means the appellate courts put their contractual interpretation “hats” on to see if the construction passes muster. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t.      Doesn’t was the verdict in

In The News . . . . Tri-City Healthcare District Hit With SLAPP Fee Award; Lehman Bros. Bankruptcy Fees Mount Up; Capistrano Unified School District’s Appeal Of IDEA Fee Award Sustained; And City Of Fontana Hit With Fees In Civil Rights Case After F

In The News

  Tri-City Healthcare District Ordered to Pay $29,000 in Fees for Partially Successful SLAPP Motion by Director Kathleen Sterling.      As reported by Nathan Scharn in a December 23, 2011 post at SignOnSanDiego.com, Tri-City Healthcare District has been ordered to pay $29,000 to director Kathleen Sterling for her partially successful SLAPP motion against claims in

Prevailing Party POOF!: Reversal of Successful Cross-Complaint Demurrer Ruling Meant Prevailing Party Fee/Costs Awards Went POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Substantial Awards Were Reversed.      As Justice O’Leary of our local Santa Ana court reminds us, reversal of a successful cross-complaint demurrer ruling (including a ruling on contractual claims) also means that the subsequent prevailing party determination goes POOF! also. The reason is that the contracts are still being litigated, and the prevailing party

Private Attorney General Statute/Section 998: Fifth District Reverses Fee Denial For Ex-Chowchilla Police Chief Winning Prior Published Decision On POBRA Rights

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 998

  Public Interest, Significant Benefit, and Financial Burden Components Are Analyzed in this One; Section 998 Rejected Offer Also Considered.      An ex-Chowchilla police chief (Mr. Robinson) won a Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) claim against the City, with the trial court later awarding $50,140 on a separate contract claim. Previously,

Scroll to Top