Marc Alexander – Page 505 – Cal Attorneys Fees

In The News . . . . Eastern District of Pennsylvania Federal Court Awards $6.5 Million In Fees And Costs In Favor Of Defense In Exceptional Patent Infringement Litigation

November 14, 2011

Even Fees/Costs Spent On Lost Claims Were Recoverable. 35 U.S.C. § 285 does allow district judges discretion to award attorney’s fees and costs in a patent infringement case that is “exceptional,” which usually means a determination that the litigation was brought and/or prosecuted in bad faith. This provision was used to award a […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Dzwonkowski Decision Now Partially Published

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

November 12, 2011

Trope “Of Counsel” Reasoning Now Available for Citation. In our October 28, 2011 post, we discussed Dzwonkowski v. Spinella, Case No. G044336, which was first issued as an unpublished decision. It had a discussion of the Trope issue in an “of counsel” context. We can now report that the Trope discussion in the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Consumer Affairs Boards Can Recoup Costs Of Investigation And Enforcement Of Case

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

November 11, 2011

This Includes Attorney’s Fees; $35,366.40 Award to Bureau of Automotive Repair Affirmed. Here is a little known fee-shifting statute available to boards and bureaus within California’s department of consumer affairs. Business and Professions Code section 125.3(a) allows such an entity bringing a license or probation revocation proceeding to recover discretionary reasonable costs of

Allocation: $95,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Community Services District Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation

November 11, 2011

Trial Court Did Reduce For Noncontract Work, But Award Justified Nonetheless. In JKB Homes Norcal, Inc. v. Denair Community Services District, Case No. F061922 (5th Dist. Nov. 10, 2011) (unpublished), District won an oral reimbursement dispute over sewer services involving an annexation agreement, with developer on the hook because there was a fees

Section 998/Reasonableness Of Fees: Three Appellate Cases Highlight Issues In These Areas

Cases: Section 998

November 11, 2011

Cost or Fee Shifting Justified Under CCP § 998. Plaintiff seeking damages in a dental malpractice case rejected a 998 offer of $25,001 inclusive of each side bearing their own costs, but was defensed after a jury trial and ordered to pay $2,850 in expert witness fees based on rejecting the 998 offer.

Appeal Sanctions: Fourth District, Division 2 Says $8,000 Is Frivolous Sanctions Cost To Taxpayers For Processing An Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Section 998

November 10, 2011

Frivolous Appeal No Laughing Matter. Marriage of Shannahan, Case No. D058220 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 10, 2011) (unpublished) is not blog-worthy for its ultimate result of affirming a $20,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions award against husband. However, it is worthy for establishing the “going rate” for frivolous appeal sanctions to the clerk

In The News . . . . Ventura County Must Pay $30,855 To Taxpayers Group In California Public Records Act Dispute

In The News

November 10, 2011

As reported by Kathleen Wilson in a November 3, 2011 post at vcstar.com, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Henry Walsh granted the Ventura County Taxpayers Association’s request for fees, awarding it $30,855 (with a slight reduction of only about $2,500) for obtaining release of the names of six-figure county pensioners from the Board

SLAPP Two-Fer: Appellate Courts Consider Two Separate Fee Awards Against The Defense For Frivolous SLAPP Motions

Cases: SLAPP

November 10, 2011

One Remanded; The Other Affirmed. Here is a situation we do not blog on that much: fee awards against the defense for bringing frivolous SLAPP motions, fully allowable under CCP § 425.16(c)(1). In Mazzaferri v. Mazzaferro, Case No. A131076 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 9, 2011) (unpublished), defendants were sanctioned for filing

Private Attorney General Statute: $336,800 In Fees And $8,400 In Costs Appropriately Awarded Against Orange County In Jaramillo Case

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

November 10, 2011

Blockbilling Did Not Result in Punishment Based On Unique Case Circumstances. Jaramillo v. County of Orange, Case Nos. G043142/G043813 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 8, 2011) (certified for publication) is likely the last real publicity upshot from Orange County’s appeal of a $183,689 back pay award to former Orange County Assistant Sheriff George

Section 998: Plaintiff Failing To Beat 998 Offer Liable For $12,403 In Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Settlement

November 8, 2011

Premature Filing of Costs Memorandum Was Not Fatal. In Tate v. Prendergast, Case No. G044621 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 7, 2011) (unpublished), personal injury plaintiff seeking $750,000 in damages rejected a CCP § 998 offer of $20,001 but only was awarded $300 for past medical expenses by a jury. This kicked in

Author name: Marc Alexander