Author name: Marc Alexander

Equity: Fees In Partition Action For “Common Benefit” Allowable, Apportioned To Each Party’s Interest In Real Estate

Cases: Equity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Court Reversed Award of Accountant Fees Against One Party, Deciding Interest Apportionment of Expenses Was Proper.      In the equity arena, partition is the procedure for segregating or terminating common interests in the same parcel of property, as where property is held jointly or by tenants in common. California has a statutory scheme […]

SLAPP: Malicious Prosecution Plaintiff Suffers $36,000 Fee Award Setback

Cases: SLAPP

  Trial Court Did Not Have to Gauge SLAPP Fees Based on Fees Awarded to Plaintiff in Prior Underlying Suit Claimed to Have Been Maliciously Prosecuted.      Here is an interesting one for our “SLAPP” category, remembering that attorney’s fees are mandatory for defendants winning anti-SLAPP motions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425(c)(1).) It also reinforces

Probate Two-Fer: Fees Allowable To Executor/Heir As A Party Assisting Court And Beneficiary Properly Awarded Fees As A Surcharge Against Trust For Trustee‘s Breach of Fiduciary Duties

Cases: Probate

       Wow, March 22 was a busy, busy day for attorney’s fees topics in both state and federal courts. Here come a lot of posts, starting with our category “Probate.” Probate Code section 11704(b) at Issue in Estate of Bartsch, Case No. A126925 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 22, 2011) (certified for publication).     

Private Attorney General Statute: Plaintiff’s Fee Award Was Not Justified Under “Catalyst Theory” Where Plaintiff Abandoned Case And Never Present Proof On The Merits

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  $22,532 Fee Award Evaporates On Appeal.      In Borad v. Grossmont Union High School District, Case Nos. D056606/D057142 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 22, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded $22,532 in attorney’s fees under the “catalyst theory” of the private attorney general statute. The lower court apparently believed that plaintiff had obtained his relief

In The News . . . . DOJ Tries To Limit Class Counsel Fee Award In Farmer/Rancher Class Action And Federal Circuit Likely Makes It More Difficult For Patent Litigants To Reap Fee Recoveries In “Exceptional” Cases

In The News

  Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Want $60.8 Million, But DOJ Wants to Limit Fee Recovery to $30.4 Million in Farmer/Rancher Class Action Settlement.      As reported by Mike Scarcella in a March 21, 2001 post at The National Law Journal, class action fees are at the storm of a controversy between plaintiffs’ attorneys and Department of Justice

In The News . . . . Deputy District Attorneys Union Hit With $101,625 Fee Order After Losing Appeal To L.A. Assistant Head Deputy District Attorney Peter Burke

In The News

L.A. Superior Court Judge Did Not Reduce Fee Request, But Refused To Award a Multiplier.      Much to the chagrin of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant awarded $101,625 in attorney’s fees against it and in favor of L.A. Assistant Head Deputy District Attorney Peter Burke

Costs/Prevailing Party: Trial Court’s Dismissal Of Case Based On Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Defense Did Not Deprive It Of Jurisdiction To Award Costs To Prevailing Party

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Workers' Compensation

Fifth District So Decides, But Lays Down No Absolute Rule On Subject Matter Jurisdiction Issue.      Brown v. Desert Christian Center, Case No. F060139 (5th Dist. Mar. 17, 2011) (certified for publication) involved a personal injury that was dismissed on the jurisdictional defense that the involved injuries were within the exclusive province of the worker’s

Allocation/Appealability/Homeowner Associations/Reasonableness Of Fees: $190,065 Fee Award Affirmed in “Acrid Dispute Between Neighbors” Under CC&Rs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Appealability, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Trial Court’s Significant Reductions in Requested Fees Obviated Need to Apportion With Mathematical Precision.      The next case illustrates a result we see often in appellate decisions when apportionment of fees is necessary as between compensable and noncompensable claims: a lower court’s reduction of fee requests obviates the need to perform a CPA-like audit of

Scroll to Top