Author name: Marc Alexander

Special Fee Shifting: Qui Tam Claimant Whacked With $300,000 Fee Award Under Arizona Fee Shifting Statute Did Not Obtain Reversal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  District Judge Did Not Award Fees Under Federal Sanctioning Authority.      In Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., Case Nos. 09-16181/09-16607 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2011) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $300,000 fee award against a qui tam plaintiff who lost a contract claim and had a history of litigation abuse […]

Class Action/Common Fund: Appellate Court Reverses Attorney’s Fees Award In Class Action Where Defendant May Be Insolvent

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Common Fund

  Setting Fees Under Wage/Hour Statutes Different From Collectibility of Fees, Remand to Award Fees Under Common Fund Doctrine With Directions.      Barboza v. West Coast Digital GSM, Inc., Case No. B227692 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 24, 2011) (unpublished) has a tortured history, with this being the fourth appeal–with many of the past ones

Prevailing Party/Section 998/Section 1717: Defendant Prevailed Under Section 1717 Because Earlier Appellate Court Decision Found Reversal And No Need For Retrial

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal Without Effect; Offset for Prior Settlements Meant No Change in Result Due to Her Prior 998 Offer.      A trifecta of issues was considered by the appellate court in Goldstein v. Williams, Case No. D057826 (Mar. 24, 2011) (unpublished).      In this one, plaintiff sued for breach of contract and in

Civil Rights: Prevailing Defendant Over Claims Under Civil Code Sections 52 And 54.3 Not Entitled To Fee-Shifting Recovery Under Section 55

Cases: Civil Rights

Sections 52 and 54.3 Held to Create Implied Exception to Section 55.      The appellate court in Turner v. Assn. of American Medical Colleges, Case No. A126742 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 24, 2011) (certified for publication) had to consider dueling fee-shifting provisions under the Unruh Civil Rights Act: sections 52 and 54.3 only allowing

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Court’s OSC Dismissal of Entire Action, Both Complaint And Cross-Complaint, Meant No Contractual Fees Were Recoverable

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

. . . However, Remand For Fee Recovery Evaluation on Dismissed Tort Claim.      For you folks entertaining voluntarily dismissals of actions, must reading in this area–if you are bothered about attorney’s fees exposure–is our state supreme court’s decision in Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 602, 607-608 (1998) [one of our Leading Cases]. We

Trade Secrets: Losing Plaintiff In Trade Secret Misappropriation Suit Has Adverse $126,550.13 Fee Award Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Trade Secrets

Blatant Lack of Standing Dooms Plaintiff’s Effort at Reversal.      Civil Code section 3426.4, a fee-shifting statute under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, allows a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party if a trade secrets misappropriation claim is made in “bad faith.” Well, the Legislature did not define “bad

Retainer Agreements: “Framework” Retainer Agreements Do Not Create A Current Attorney-Client Relationship Agreement Between Counsel And Former Client

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Fourth District, Division 3 Distinguishes “Framework” From Classic Retainer Agreements.      In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior Court (City of Newport Beach), Case No. G044223 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 22, 2011) (certified for publication), our local Santa Ana appellate court decided that a “framework” retainer agreement–an open-ended agreement affording counsel the option to create

Homeowner Associations/Prevailing Party: HOA Was Not Liable For Fees And Costs When It Obtained Injunctive Relief Before Dismissing Its Complaint Voluntarily

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Defendant Not Entitled to Fees Where Contractually-Based Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed And Not Entitled to Costs Under Discretionary Prevailing Party Provision.      Homeowner association (HOA)/homeowner disputes have resulted in us doing a fair amount of posts under our category “Homeowner Associations.” Here is one more to add to the list, with a homeowner seeking $64,572.84

Scroll to Top