Author name: Marc Alexander

Special Fee Shifting Statutes–Prompt Payment Statutes: Denial Of Fee Award Reversed Under Prompt Payment Statutes For Winning Subcontractor

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Contract Having “Each Side Bear Fees” Provision Did Not Trump Statutory Fee Recovery.      The appellate court in Cleveland Wrecking Co. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case Nos. A124033/A125811 (lst Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 9, 2011) (unpublished) dealt with a case where a winning subcontractor–entitled to fee recovery under the prompt payment statute codified […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Substantiation of Fees: $71,500 Attorney’s Fees Award Sustained Against Many Procedural Challenges

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  SLAPP Appeal Did Not Stay Fee Motion and Block Billing Challenge Rejected.      In Mangine v. Steier, Case Nos. B219022/B222822 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was SLAPPed and lost a summary adjudication of a landlord-tenant dispute in which the lower court granted attorney’s fees of $71,500 to present landlord under

Private Attorney General Statute: You Can Get 1021.5 Fees For Administrative Proceeding Work And Personal Stake Alone Does Not Disqualify You

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 6 Reverses Small Fee Award to Catalyst 1021.5 Winners.      In an interesting decision arising out of a private owner-church dispute, the Second District, Division 6 again shows us that they are very attuned to fee award issues under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (California’s private attorney general statute).     

Sanctions: Musaelian v. Adams CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Update

Cases: Sanctions

  Case Now Published.      In our July 3, 2011 post, we discussed Musaelian v. Adams, an unpublished First District decision discussing the standards for awarding attorney’s fees for defending against a CCP § 128.7 motion, using analogous Rule 11 federal case law in reaching its result. We can now report that this decision is

Employment/Prevailing Party: Breach Of Partnership Agreement Claim Did Trigger Unpaid Wage Fee Shifting Statute

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

  However, Lower Court Correctly Determined Plaintiff Was Not Prevailing Party.      Labor Code section 218.5 is a prevailing party fee-shifting provision for claims involving unpaid wages. That section was central to the next case, specifically with the question funneling down to who prevailed.      In Lutz v. Sortwell, Case No. D055792 (4th Dist., Div.

MFAA Arbitration: Two Unpublished Decisions Explore MFAA Issues

Cases: Arbitration

  #1: Post-Rejection Suit After Nonbinding Award Must Signal Award Rejection and Request for Trial De Novo; If Not, the Nonbinding Award May Become Binding.      Kessinger v. Pepper, Case No. D057680 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 28, 2011) (unpublished) is a very important decision for litigants rejecting a non-binding arbitration award made in an

Scroll to Top