Author name: Marc Alexander

Celebrities: Lucasfilm Tentatively Ordered To Pay Nearly $1.3 Million In Attorney’s Fees To Winning Lawyers In Pregnancy Discrimination Case

Cases: Celebrities

Plaintiff Had Won $113,830 In Compensatory Damages From a Jury Earlier.      As reported by Gary Klien and Erin Sherbert in respective January 13, 2011 posts of the Marin Independent Journal and SF Weekly, Marin County Superior Court Judge Lynn O’Malley Taylor tentatively ruled on Thursday, January 13 that Lucasfilm Ltd. should pay nearly $1.3 […]

Allocation: None Necessary In Financial Elder Abuse Case Where Issues Were Intertwined

Cases: Allocation

First District, Division 4 Sustains $320,748.25 Fee Award to Plaintiff Conservator.      Plaintiff conservator won a $99,900 compensatory jury verdict against certain defendants, but only one defendant was found liable under the elder abuse statute containing a mandatory fee shifting provision against unsuccessful defendants. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.5(a).) Later, the trial court ordered

Family Law Awards: $175,000 Fee Award For Child Custody, Visitation, and Support Issues Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

  Second District, Division 6 Finds that Prenuptial Agreement Fee Waiver Only Related to Property/Spousal Issues and that California Would Not Enforce Waiver With Respect to Child Issues.      Husband and wife entered into a prenuptial agreement under Michigan law where, among other things, they agreed to waive any attorney’s fees resulting from any divorce,

Fee Clause Interpretation: Later Independent Contractor Agreement Did Not Extinguish Fee Clause In Earlier Purchase Agreement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fifth District Finds No Novation Under the Circumstances.      Here is a contractual interpretation/novation case that presents a set of circumstances we have not reported on to date.      In Miller v. London Properties, Case No. F059259 (5th Dist. Jan. 13, 2011) (unpublished), defendant brokers prevailed in a contractual dispute with plaintiffs over their purchase

Probate/Substantiation of Fees: $693,876.02 Extraordinary Fee Award To Estate Administrator’s Attorney Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

No Res Judicata Impact From Prior Fee Denial; Daily Substantiation Requirements Do Not Govern Probate Fee Awards.      This post will definitely interest probate practitioners. Aside from the fact that it involves a fairly substantial “extraordinary fee” award, it also demonstrates that the appellate courts will be demanding on application of res judicata principles and

Civil Rights/Sanctions: Federal Court of Appeals Provides Guidance on When Fees Should Be Awarded Against Losing Civil Rights Plaintiffs

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Sanctions

  First Circuit Finds Excluded Trial Evidence Could Be Used to Determine Reasonableness of Suit, Reversing Fee Award; Reviewing Court Also Scaled Down Sanctions Against Plaintiffs’ Attorney.       In a civil rights political discrimination case, a district judge granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law after a 15 day trial, in

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Losing Patent Plaintiff’s Case Was Not Exceptional So As To Warrant Adverse Fee Award As Sanctions

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Federal Circuit Reversed $660,351.93 Fee Award to Google.      Here is an interesting patent decision where a substantial fee award of $660,351.93 to Google was reversed by the Federal Circuit.      In iLOR, LLC v. Google, No. 2010-1117, 1172 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2011), Google moved to recover fees and costs from a losing

Section 998: “Early On” 998 Offer Did Not Give Rise To Cost Shifting Because There Was No Free Flow Of Information Or Pre-existing Relationships Between Litigants

Cases: Section 998

  Fifth District Passes On Impact of Third District’s Opinion in Barba v. Perez.      Just to show you how California intermediate appellate opinions do indeed enter into the jurisprudential “flow” of decisions, we now can report on how another appellate court has reacted to Barba v. Perez, 166 Cal.App.4th 444 (2008), an interesting CCP

Scroll to Top