Author name: Marc Alexander

POOF!: $260,000 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL FEES AWARD GOES AWAY WITH PARTIAL REVERSAL OF MANDATE PETITION

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

       The appellate court’s recent decision in Ross v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B228624 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 20, 2011) (unpublished) demonstrates our POOF! principle in convincing fashion. There, the appellate court reversed a mandate petition in part which was favorable to plaintiffs. That reversal meant that the $260,000 fees award to […]

Homeowner Associations: Substantial $306,464.63 Fee Award To Some Prevailing Defendants And $236,976 Fee Award To HOA Sustained By Appellate Court

Cases: Homeowner Associations

  Actions Involved Enforcement of CC&Rs, With Trial Court Reasonably Awarding a Lodestar Amount After Reductions.      Yet again, we have a homeowner-HOA dispute resulting in substantial fee awards against a homeowner and in favor of two set of defendants. Seltzer v. Eugene Burger Management Assn., Case No. A128552 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 19,

Deadlines/Private Attorney General Statute: Substantial Awards For Successful Appellate Work Affirmed In Long Ongoing Litigation

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Trial Court Properly Rejected Comparison of Selective Tasks of Opposing Counsel in Gauging Reasonableness of Claimant’s Fee Request.      Here is an interesting one where years and years of litigation may have come to a close in Vasquez v. State of California, Case No. D056598 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 19, 2011) (unpublished), resolving

Section 998: $62,638.20 Expert Witness 998 Expense Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Settlement

  Reason Was That Expense Was Expressly Provided For And Proper On Its Face.      This next unpublished decision, Van Alstyne v. Carter, Case No. C064004 (3d Dist. Oct. 18, 2011) (unpublished), is a nice complement to our recent posts of September 30 and October 19, 2011 on the recently published Second District decision in

Assignment: Assignor Cannot Escape Burdens By Assigning To Closely-Held Assignee For Purposes Of Escaping Attorney’s Fee Exposure

Cases: Assignment

  Assignor Controlling Litigation Should Not Avoid Fee Exposure Via Assignment.      Plaintiff owner and his wholly-owned corporation lost a specific performance, rescission, and declaratory relief suit to trustees of a revocable trust after trustees obtained an evidentiary preclusion order upon plaintiffs’ refusal to provide discovery on the “ready, willing, and able” purchaser issue. Then,

In The News . . . . One Piece of the MGA Entertainment Puzzle May Be Settled

In The News

  MGA and Its Former Law Firm O’Melveny & Myers Have Reached Tentative Settlement.      In the fallout from the MGA-Mattel battle, MGA Entertainment’s former counsel O’Melveny & Myers had sued MGA to collect $10.2 million in disputed billings for O’Melveny’s former role in the Mattel litigation (representing MGA from 2007 to 2007). MGA had

Trade Secrets: Voluntarily Dismissed Action Did Not Lead to Award Of Attorney’s Fees In Trade Secret Action

Cases: Trade Secrets

  Trial Court Found That Employer Did Not File Action in Bad Faith.      Bad faith trade secret claims allow the court to discretionarily award reasonable fees and costs to the prevailing party, although the claimant has to prove both objective speciousness of the plaintiff’s claim and subjective bad faith in bringing/maintaining the claim. (Civ.

Scroll to Top