Author name: Marc Alexander

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Decision Fees Decisions–Part 2 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions.      10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post.      Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil […]

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Fees Decisions In 2010–Part 1 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Equity, Cases: Probate, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 998, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     Above:  Wrapping It Up.       As we wish all readers the happiest of Holidays, we now present our top 20 published decisions from California appellate courts or the Ninth Circuit. This list is not meant to slight other important decisions in certain areas, but these are the ones that “rose to the top” from

Lodestar/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Lodestar, Not Cost-Plus Method, Governs Fee Recovery Under Special Red Light Abatement Fee Shifting Statute

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  First District, Division 4 Finds McCullough Reasoning Inapt; Also Refuses to Upset Cost Award to City in Separate Appeal.      In City of Santa Rosa v. Patel, Case Nos. A124199/A124452 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 21, 2010) (certified for publication), City of Santa Rosa prevailed in a red light abatement action and was awarded

Retainer Agreements: Engagement Letter Delineating Representation Of Trustee In Representative Capacity Meant Trustee Not Individually Liable For Fees

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Second District, Division 5 Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Client.      Retainer agreements usually are enforced by their terms, with any unambiguous language governing in any event and ambiguous language most often construed against the drafting lawyer. The next case illustrates that the “scope of representation” language, if precise, will be construed as

Private Attorney General Statute: Winning District Supervisor Entitled As A Matter of Law To Award Of Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 6 Reverses Lower Court Denial of Fees.      Doreen Farr and Steven Pappas were candidates for the third district supervisor in Santa Barbara County. Ms. Farr was elected, and Mr. Pappas unsuccessfully contested the election pursuant to Elections Code section 16100(d), (f). Ms. Farr made a motion for attorney’s fees in

In The News/Retainer Agreements: L.A. Superior Court Judge Allows Spector Challenge To Criminal Retainer Agreement To Proceed Before A Jury

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Retainer Agreements, In The News

  Criminal Defense Attorney Robert Shapiro’s Summary Judgment Bid Rejected.      As reported by Adam Popescu in a December 17, 2010 online post of the Beverly Hills Courier, noted criminal defense attorney Robert Shapiro’s firm had a retainer agreement to provide legal services to now imprisoned, music producer Phil Spector. Mr. Shapiro claims that the

In The News . . . . Plaintiff’s Attorneys In Orange County Superior Court Forgarty-Hardwick Appeal And C.D. Cal. Trademark Case Reap Two Nice Fee Recoveries

In The News

Law Office of Shawn A. McMillan Gets Recent Two-Fer Awards.      Congratulations go out to Shawn A. McMillan and his colleagues for obtaining two recent nice fee award recoveries, one in state court and one in federal court. Fogarty-Hardwick Orange County Superior Court Case.      We have posted on this one before in our October

Appeal Sanctions: Sanctions Get Doled Out, Jointly And Severally Against Clients And Their Attorney, For Two Frivolous Appeals.

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

First District, Division 5 Provides Updated Information on Compensating Aggrieved Litigants As Well As Appellate Courts for Frivolous Appeals.      The companion cases of Peirona v. TMT Associates, LLC, Case No. A126790 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 17, 2010) (unpublished) and Peirona v. Nguyen, Case No. A126551 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 17, 2010) (unpublished)

Section 1717: Trope Limitation Did Apply Where Employed Associate Of Plaintiff Lawyer Was Used to Successfully Sue Former Client For Unpaid Fees

Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 1 Finds Witte Is Most Analogous “Fit.”      What do irony, zeugma, and Witte have in common?  Trope.      Civil Code section 1717 is an oft-used fee shifting provision used where there is a contractual fee clause. However, the California Supreme Court in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 291 (1995) [one

Scroll to Top