Author name: Marc Alexander

Family Law: Fee Award Against Maternal Grandparents Financing Daughter’s Custody Fight Was Not Proper When Grandparents Were Not Seeking Custody In California Proceeding

Cases: Family Law

Fact that Grandparents Sought Custody in Mexico and Financed Daughter’s California Efforts Did Not Support Fee Award Against Them.      This next case involved a child custody imbroglio that took place in both California and Mexico between a former husband and wife, with wife’s parents (maternal grandparents) helping finance many of her fights—even though custody […]

998 Offers: No Apportionment Necessary Between Defendants Where Liability Is Joint And Several/Vicarious In Nature

Cases: Section 998

First District, Division 2 Finds Admissions in Case Management Conference Statement Established Vicarious Liability For Gauging 998 Offer’s Validity.      Here is one for you personal injury practitioners, whether representing plaintiffs or defendants.      Although unapportioned Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers are usually taboo, a prime exception occurs where the defendants are jointly

Homeowners Associations: Substantial Attorney’s Fees Awards In Favor Of Adjoining Neighbors and HOA Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Almost $500,000 in Total Fees Assessed Against Losing Homeowners.      For all you Olympic watchers out there, this next case will resonate the famous “agony of defeat” line from ABC’s Wide World of Sports.      In Sharp v. Anderson, Case No. B212528 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 18, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiff neighboring real property owners

Section 1717: No Basis For Fee Recovery Where Operative Contract Had No Fees Clause, Even Though Later Contract Did Have Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Analysis of Fee Recovery Under Multiple Agreements Must Focus On Contract With Fee Clause Predicate.      Many decisions we have examined in the past under Civil Code section 1717 involve situations where multiple contracts (some with fees clauses and some without) are part of an integrated transaction or where apportionment between contract/noncontract claims was

In The News . . . . Natomas Unified School District Has Spent $454,878.03, And Rising, Against Developers, Attorneys, Real Estate Broker, and Appraiser For Claimed Purchase of Price-Inflated Property

In The News

   School District Would Hand the Property Back.      To show you how expensive modern litigation happens to be, take the case of the Natomas Unified School District. (Natomas is one of the remaining undeveloped communities in the northwest Sacramento, CA area.)      A grand jury report in May 2009 alleged that the District paid

In The News . . . . Lawyers Having Conflicts With Class Representatives Over Incentive Payments Denied Fees In Entirety in BAR/BRI Settlement

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Ethics, In The News

  Nonconflicted Attorneys Get Award of Fees; Conflicted Attorneys Do Receive Reimbursement of Over $1.2 Million in Expenses.      In our April 26, 2009 post, we reported on Rodriguez v. West Publishing Co., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009), where class representative incentive agreements creating conflicts of interests required reconsideration of fee awards to both

Civil Rights: Appellate Court Affirms Slashed FEHA Prevailing Party Fee Award Where Plaintiff’s Success Limited After Prior Appeal and Attorney Fee Substantiation Was Unreliable

Cases: Civil Rights

  Plaintiff Appeals $500,000-Plus Fee Award, But Gets Nothing Better.      Mnaskanian v. 21st Century Insurance, Case No. B211757 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 11, 2010) (unpublished) shows that both trial and appellate courts will apply lodestar analysis in FEHA fee award situations, discounting for limited success and unreliable attorney fee substantiation when awarding “bottom

Law Of The Case: Prior Appellate Opinion, Never Challenged On Rehearing Or Supreme Court Review, Was Law Of The Case On Fee Determination

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines

  Mere Disagreement With Prior Appellate Opinion Does Not Impact Law of the Case Doctrine.      In Tennen v. Finstad, Case No. B217765 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 10, 2010) (unpublished), losing litigants on an order denying an attorney’s fees motion brought a prior successful appeal in which the Court of Appeal reversed an order

Scroll to Top