Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General Statute: Appellate Court Affirms Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Petitioner Winning An Auditing Reallocation of Oakland Measure Y Funds

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Neither Private Attorney General or Common Fund Doctrines Justified Fee Award.       Sacks v. City of Oakland, Case Nos. A126781/A126817 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 10, 2010) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion not published) involved a petitioner who, at the trial court level, won a mandate writ regarding the allocation and use of tax […]

In The News . . . . Alameda Hit With $44,000 Counsel Bill By Councilman Lena Tam

In The News

It Already Spent $60,000 on Its Own Outside Attorney in Investigation of Ms. Tam.      Here is one that might have some readers cringing given the fiscal woes hitting lots of municipalities.      Alameda City Councilwoman Lena Tam handed officials a $44,000 bill for legal services she incurred while the City was investigating whether she

Judgment Enforcement/Minors: Defense Costs From Minor Dismissing Case Should Not Be Imposed Against Guardian Ad Litem

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Minors

Court of Appeal Issued Mandate Quashing Judgment Debtor Exam Proceeding Against Guardian.      In Beasley v. Superior Court, Case No. D057308 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 10, 2010) (unpublished), a minor, through a grandmother who was appointed as guardian ad litem, had costs assessed against her in a case after it was voluntarily dismissed. The

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Losing Civil Embezzlement Case, Who Later Pleads No Contest In Criminal Case, Ordered To Make $122,225 In Restitution To Former Employer

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$77,750 of Restitution Order Consisted of Attorney’s Fees.      Penal Code section 1202.4(f) is a very specialized fee-shifting statute under which a trial court in a criminal case can order a defendant to reimburse a third party for costs incurred in proving the criminal act (such as reimbursing a former employer for fees and costs

In The News . . . . Rep. Charles Rangel Rankles A Nonprofit Group About Paying Legal Bills From PAC

Uncategorized

Nonprofit Group Files Complaint With Federal Election Commission.      Censured Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) apparently has drawn the ire of a nonprofit group, the National Legal and Policy Center, which has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. The NLPC alleges that Rep. Rangel, who denies wrongdoing, used moneys from his National Leadership PAC

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CCP § 1038 Whacks Losing Litigant With Defense Costs Of $67,644.30 In Favor Of City Of Fullerton

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fourth District, Division Sustains Finding That Suit Was Unmeritorious, Frivolous Litigation.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1038 is a potent fee-shifting statute allowing public entities a way to recover the costs of defending against unmeritorious and frivolous litigation. (Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center, 19 Cal.4th 851, 857 (1998).) In relevant

Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fee Clause Relating To Any Initiated Litigation In Connection With Obstruction Justified Substantial Fee Award Against Losing Party

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Second District, Division 6 Affirms $210,697.50 Fee Award.      Judges, as much as anyone, do try to be pragmatic in awarding fees, which are frequently based on equitable considerations. Here is one illustrating that principle, even though the breadth of the fees clause and intertwinement of issues well supported the result legally.      In

Probate: Difference Between “Ordinary” And “Extraordinary” Compensation Highlighted In Recent Unpublished Decision

Cases: Probate, Cases: Standard of Review

Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Sizable Extraordinary Fee Award Under Abuse of Discretion Standard.      Acting Presiding Justice O’Leary, in the 3-0 unpublished decision in Estate of Fernandez, Case No. G041272 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 7, 2010) (unpublished), has a nice discussion of the difference between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” compensation in the probate area

Scroll to Top