Author name: Marc Alexander

Federal Fee Shifting Awards: U.S. Magistrate Judge In Northern California Awards $800,000 In Attorney’s Fees To Defendant Under CAN-SPAM Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fees Were Appropriate By Analogy to Similar Fee Shifting Provision of the Copyright Act.      In 2003, Congress passed CAN-SPAM Act, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act. Now, a United States District Magistrate Judge has awarded defendant attorney’s fees of over $800,000 under a fee shifting/sanctions provision of the CAN-SPAM Act. […]

FRCP Rule 11: Plaintiffs’ Withdrawal Of Claims By A Dismissal Without Prejudice, Through Service of A Motion to Amend Adding Other Claims, Satisfied Rule 11 Safe Harbor

Cases: Sanctions

Ninth Circuit So Holds in 2-1 Decision, Drawing a Sharp Dissent.      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) has a safe harbor by which a party may deflect exposure if it timely withdraws claims identified by the opponent within 21 days after service of the safe harbor request. At issue before the Ninth Circuit was

SLAPP: Appellate Court Confronts A Maze Of Judgment Satisfaction Issues In Ruling On Payments Of Multiple SLAPP Fee Awards

Cases: SLAPP

First District, Division Five Decision is a Law Professor’s Dream on Judgment Enforcement/Acknowledgment Issues.      By now you know (if you have followed our blog or will soon know) that defendant winners of SLAPP motions are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. See our category “SLAPP” to see other catalogued decisions on

Homeowner Associations: Trial Court’s Denial Of Separate Fee Requests For Prevailing In Homeowner Dispute Was Erroneous

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations

Lower Court Erred in Failing to Find Fee Entitlement, to Determine Prevailing Party Status, or to Make Any Apportionments in Summarily Denying Diverse Defense Fee Requests.      Trial courts do have a duty to examine fee entitlement, to determine prevailing party status, and to make any apportionments when examining diverse fee requests by different defendants.

Insurance: Cumis Arbitration Not Justified Where No Agreement Or Determination Exists That Conflict Exists Between Insurer and Insured

Cases: Insurance

Second District, Division 3 Agrees that Arbitration Premature Until Conflict Exists.      Here is a Cumis arbitration case that should be of interest to insurance practitioners.      In Savvy Property Mgt. v. United National Ins. Co., Case No. B214549 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2010) (unpublished), defendants in a tenant uninhabitability suit tendered defense

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Award Of Partial Fees To Winning Defendants In Statutory Action For Injunctive Relief Under CCP § 527.6(i)

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Trial Court Appropriately Apportioned Out Fee Work Unrelated to Statutory Injunctive Relief Claim.      Generally, no award of attorney’s fees is available in an invasion of privacy action. However, in a statutory action for injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(i) (a statutory harassment/violence statute), the prevailing party may be awarded court costs

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fee Recovery Under Business and Professions Code Section 809.9 Remanded For Determination If Losing Party Acted In Bad Faith

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 8 Reverses $45,728.75 Fee Award Against Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center, But Remands For Bad Faith Determination.      Business and Professions Code section 809.9, a specialized fee shifting provision, provides that in any suit brought to challenge an action taken or a restriction imposed which must be reported to the California Medical

Private Attorney General Statute: CEQA Winner Entitled To Substantial Fee Recovery As Well As Fees For Prevailing On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms $265,715.55 Fee Award Under CCP Section 1021.5.      In Center For Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, Case Nos. D056652/D056648 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 25, 2010) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion not published), two nonprofit organizations successfully challenged the County of San Bernardino’s approval of an

Scroll to Top