Author name: Marc Alexander

Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Settlement Agreement Allowing For Patients’ Rights Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 6 Affirms $125,290 Fee Award in Action Where Plaintiff Settled For $126,000 on Various Counts.      Settlement agreements are generally enforced by their terms, especially where they involve enforcement of public policy fee-shifting statutes. The next case demonstrates this principle very well.      In Rodriguez v. Victoria Ventura Health Care LLC, Case […]

SLAPP: Court Of Appeal Sustains $42,593.75 Fees Award To Defendant In Affirming Case Involving The Megan’s Law Website

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Remand Also Ordered For Purposes of Awarding Appellate Defense Fees.      In Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc., Case No. B214653 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2010) (certified for publication), the appellate court considered the collision of Megan’s Law and the SLAPP statute. Specifically, Megan’s Law has a provision prohibiting use

CCP § 998 and CC § 1717: $60,270 Fee Award Affirmed Where Plaintiff Only Recovered $7,477.01

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Second District, Division 7 Examines the Interplay Between Two Statutory Schemes.      There is a definite interplay between Civil Code section 1717 (allowing recovery to a prevailing party where there is a contractual fees clause) and Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (California’s offer to judgment statute). Where a party might otherwise be considered

Probate: Court Of Appeal Interprets Fee-Shifting Provision As Remedial, Reversing Denial Of Fees To Beneficiaries Under Probate Code Section 17211(b)

Cases: Probate

  Appellate Court Faces First Impression Issue of Construing “Contests the Trustee’s Account” Language in Statute.      Probate Code section 17211(b) gives discretion to award attorney’s fees to a trust beneficiary who “contests the trustee’s account,” if the court determines the trustee’s opposition to the contest was “without reasonable cause and in bad faith.” The

In The News . . . . L.A. Superior Court Judge Denies Motion To Appoint Receiver To Collect Judgment Against Marilyn Monroe’s Estate

In The News

Sex and Attorney’s Fees.      Tom Kelley Studios, whose founder photographed the then 22-year-old Marilyn Monroe while she was laying nude on red velvet in May 1949, waged federal court litigation against Marilyn Monroe’s estate and CMG Worldwide, Inc, the estate’s licensing agent, over who has the publicity and distribution rights to the actress’ famed

CCP § 128.7 Sanctions: $20,500 Family Law Sanctions Award Reversed For Failure To Support With Admissible Evidence In Timely Fashion

Cases: Sanctions

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds The Only Timely-Filed Declaration Was Devoid In Setting Forth The Attorney Work Performed Or Credible Fee Total to Support the Award.      The next case teaches that, after service of the CCP § 128.7 “safe harbor” motion, if you then file the motion after noncompliance by the putatively sanctionable party/attorney,

Sanctions: CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions Of $20,468.06 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

  Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Summary Judgment Grant Did Not Divest Trial Court of Jurisdiction to Rule on Previously Served 128.7 Sanctions Motion.      The next case reminds all litigators that some client control becomes necessary when a plaintiff contradicts the main theory of his/her complaint at a deposition. Sanctions frequently will result unless

SLAPP: $107,524.03 Fee Award To Defendants Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

First District, Division 2 Finds No Statement of Decision Required on Fee Ruling and that Lodestar Rates For Out-of-County Counsel Could Indeed Be Higher.      By now, most of you readers know that the anti-SLAPP statute has a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of prevailing defendants. That means the issue generally devolves to how much,

Scroll to Top