Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General: $3,531,201.10 Attorney’s Fees Award To Plaintiff Successfully Being A Catalyst On Low-Income Housing Issue Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Decision Shows The Proper Way For A Plaintiff To Show It Was A Catalyst And To Substantiate Its Fee Request With Great Detail Before The Trial Judge.             For public interest and governmental lawyers, The Kennedy Comm’n v. City of Huntington Beach, Case Nos. E078403 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 11, 2023) (published) […]

Judgment Enforcement: Prior Recordation of Interlocutory Judgment Containing Monetary/Constructive Trust Relief Beat Out Later Deed Of Trust Recorded By Attorneys To Secure Fees

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Race-Notice Gave Victory To The Interlocutory Judgment Recordation.             In The 12 Tribes of Israel, U.S.A., Inc. v. Barnum, Case No. B315528 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 4, 2023) (unpublished), the nub of the appeal came down to a race-notice issue.  Did an earlier interlocutory judgment containing monetary and constructive relief beat out a subsequent

Prevailing Party: Tenant’s Successful Demurrer, Resulting In A Dismissal Of A Case Without Prejudice To Refiling A Future Complaint, Did Not Entitle Tenant To Prevailing Party Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party

An Interim Dismissal Without Prejudice Did Not Dispositively Determine Who Prevailed.             Tenant, during the COVID-19 pandemic, successfully demurred to a landlord complaint on the basis that the lawsuit was premature given pandemic rules which did not allow the suit to be filed when it was.  The demurrer was sustained without prejudice to filing a

Appeal Sanctions, Costs: Prevailing Party Was Entitled To An Amended Judgment With Costs Requests Included Because The Other Side Did Not File Any Motion To Strike/Tax Costs

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Costs

However, Appeal Sanctions Were Denied Because They Were Improperly Sought In Respondent’s Brief, Rather Than Through A Separate Motion.             The next case, Black v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., Case No. A165731 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 11, 2023) (unpublished), has two lessons, where a prevailing party did obtain an amended judgment to add unopposed

SLAPP: Portions Of Defendants’ Frivolous SLAPP Motions Justified Trial Court And Appellate Fees Under Anti-SLAPP Statute

Cases: SLAPP

Defendants Appealing The Entire SLAPP Denial As To All Claims Resulted In The Ruling.             Nirschl v. Schiller, Case No. B313105 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 10, 2023) (published) involved SLAPP defendants in a case where only portions of their SLAPP motion as to non-defamation claims were denied and deemed to be frivolous in nature—with

Costs: Prevailing Party On Appeal Allowed $1,500 In Printing/Copying Appellate Costs For Appellate Briefs/Other Pleadings

Cases: Costs

Counsel Press Expenses Were Allowed, With Unsuccessful Motions Still Entitled To Allowance.             In Kleidman v. Feeva Technology, Inc., Case No. H049681 (6th Dist. May 10, 2023) (unpublished), the losing party challenged $1,500 in appellate costs for printing and copying briefs, arguing that it included motion and other pleadings (not just briefs) and that it

Special Fee Shifting Statutes, SLAPP: $40,000 Civil Harassment Fee Award To The Defense Affirmed, But SLAPP Denial Remanded After California Supreme Court Transfer To See If Step Two Was Satisfied

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$84,150 Civil Harassment Fee Request Reduced By More Than 50%.             Geiser v. Kuhns, Case No. B279738 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2021) (unpublished) is a case where both a civil harassment fee award and SLAPP denial were in play, with the California Supreme Court on two occasions remanding to the appellate court on

Family Law: After Two Decades Of Dissolution Battles, Husband Obtains $8,179.20 Fees Award For Brining A CCP § 664.6 Motion To Reduce A Marital Settlement Agreement To Judgment

Cases: Family Law

Wife Denied 2030/271 Sanction Requests—The Dissolution Battle May Be Over!             In Marriage of Shepherd, Case No. B322621 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2023) (unpublished), two decades after a dissolution action was filed, husband and wife seemingly reached a marital settlement agreement (MSA) resolving all issues, read into the record in a court proceeding. 

Costs: Computerized Legal Research Costs Are Not Allowable As Routine Costs, But Electronic Hosting Expenses, Even If Not Ordered By The Trial Court, Are Discretionarily Reimbursable

Cases: Costs

1/4 DCA Follows Ladas On The Computerized Legal Research Issue.              Kung v. Carthy, Case No. A161965 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 3, 2023) (unpublished) considered whether computerized legal research costs and electronic hosting expenses (expenses not expressly approved by the trial judge) are reimbursable.  Number 1 was decided to not be a reimbursable cost,

Scroll to Top