Author name: Marc Alexander

Lodestar/Private Attorney General Statute: Negative Multiplier Based On Perception Fee-Owing Government Agency Could Use Money To Fund Ongoing Operations Was No Reason To Reduce Lodestar

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 8 Believed Financial Factor Could Be Considered Based on Settlement Agreement, But Did Not Beiieve Ongoing Operational “Cut” Rationale Was Justified.      A redevelopment agency in Rogel v. Lynwood Redevelopment Agency, Case No. B219626 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 2, 2011) (certified for publication) was exposed to up to $2.7 million […]

Indemnity/Allocation: $235,000 Fee Award On Implied Indemnity Claim Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Indemnity

Failure to Apportion Between Defense and Cross-Complaint Prosecution Work Was the Flaw in the Fee Award.      Depending on the fee-entitlement statute, apportionment may be a mandatory exercise. Although it usually is discretionary and may not be needed where work was intertwined, these principles do not necessarily apply to all fee situations. Sheridan v. Fladeboe

E-Discovery: U.S. Magistrate Andrew J. Peck And Attorney David J. Lender Write “E-Discovery” Article Worth Reading

Cases: Discovery

They List Their 10 Key E-Discovery Issues for 2011.      Available for reading in the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel (April 3, 2011 release) is an article “10 Key E-Discovery Issues in 2011: Expert Insight to Manage Successfully” written by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck (S.D.N.Y.) and attorney David J. Lender (a partner at Weil, Gotshal

SLAPP: Fee Awards–Substantially Reduced From Fee Requests–Are Affirmed

Cases: SLAPP

Second District, Division 1 Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Awarding Reduced Fees to Winning Defendants.      Here is a case that demonstrates that the mandatory fee awards awardable to defendants under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1) are hinged on reasonable fees, with trial courts not having to rubberstamp fee requests that are too

Sanctions: Lower Court Sanctions Under $5,000 Not Immediately Appealable

Cases: Sanctions

Appeal of Two Sanctions Orders Are Dismissed.      Warkentin v. Countrywide Home Loans, Case No. F059782 (5th Dist. Apr. 29, 2011) (unpublished) is a situation where the appellate court dismissed two appeals of sanctions orders, one of $2,012 for a plaintiff reasserting allegations that were earlier stricken from a pleading and the other amounting to

In The News/Retainer Agreements: Alternative Billing Arrangement Are Catching On, Reaping Higher Profits For Law Firm Participants And Saving Businesses Some Significant Legal Expenses

In The News

  Recent BTI Consulting Group Survey Shows.      The BTI Consulting Group (out of Wellesley, MA) has reported that 31% of law firms participating in alternative billing arrangements are making higher profits through these arrangements than with the billable hour, in its new survey of firm leaders and corporate counsel. Such participating firms report paying

Family Law Duo: 271 Sanctions Award Of $5,000 Affirmed, While 2030/2032 Award Of $20,000 In Attorney’s Fees Reversed For Failure to Consider All The Circumstantial Factors

Cases: Family Law

  Here we go–a family law attorney’s fees two-fer. Bondarenko v. Buehrle, Case No. A128933 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 27, 2011) (Unpublished).      This one involves an affirmance of a $5,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions award against former boyfriend/father in an acrimonious visitation dispute with former girlfriend/mother of their chid Beau. The main

Scroll to Top