Author name: Marc Alexander

Appellate Sanctions/Civility: $10,000 Sanctions Ordered Paid To Appellate Court Clerk For Lying To Court, Seeking Unwarranted Sanctions, Bullying Opposing Counsel, Showing No Remorse, And Vowing To Continue Such Practices

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

  Civility To Both Other Lawyers and the Court, Cries Out Loud and Clear in Justice Bedsworth-Authored Opinion.      Here is a very interesting decision that is going to be cited in what needs to be done in “proving up” for default judgment purposes, general civility to other lawyers and the court system, and appellate […]

In The News . . . . San Diego Superior Court State Judge Denies Without Prejudice A $756,132 Fee Request To Winner In San Diego Fireworks Permitting Dispute

In The News

  Fee Request Was Ruled To Be Premature In Nature.      In a follow-up to our post of October 25, 2011, San Diego Superior Court Judge Linda Quinn denied a requested $756,132 in attorney’s fees under California’s private attorney statute by attorney Mario Gonzalez for winning a case challenging San Diego’s fireworks permitting process. She

Class Actions/In The News: Prof. Fitzpatrick, At A Recent Washington, D.C. Panel Seminar, Contends That Class Action Lawyers Get “A Bad Rap” On Fee Awards

Cases: Class Actions, In The News

  He Has Empirical Evidence to Support His Position.      In Washington, D.C., there was an interesting recent panel discussion at the National Lawyers Convention of the Federalist Society, discussing whether attorney’s fees in class actions are too low, too high, or just right. Some panelists cited class action abuses, but an unlikely panelist for

Employment: 2d Dist., Div. 5 Disallows Fees To Defendant Employer in Issue Before California Supreme Court In Kirby And UPS Wage & Hour Cases.

Cases: Employment

       The Second District, Division 5 in McGaha v. Mountain High Resort Assn., Case No. B2227086 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 22, 2011) (unpublished) affirmed a denial of $50,319.50 attorney’s fees to defendant employer after dismissal without prejudice of various work-related claims brought by plaintiff employee. The fee refusal was sustained based on an

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Section 1717/Section 998/Allocation: Fee Awards Do Not Have To Be Proportional To Damages Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  2d Dist., Division 6 So Holds In Two Unpublished Opinions, Besides Facing Other Issues. Weiss v. Cope, Case No. B24970 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished)      In this one, plaintiff rejected defendant’s 998 offer. However, plaintiff’s total judgment–the sum of the jury award and $100,000 in attorney’s fees awarded by the

Deadlines: Amended Judgment On Fees/Costs Award Was Substantial Change Restarting Appeals Clock And Time For Filing Fee Motion Following Prior Appellate Opinion Directives

Cases: Deadlines

  Appellate Court Follows Erickson over Torres on Amended Judgment Procedural Issue.      This next case is a sequel to an appellate opinion we discussed in our December 1, 2009 post, where the Second District, Division 4 decided that the first 998 offer is the proper measuring stick in a case where a second 998

Scroll to Top