Author name: Marc Alexander

Sanctions: CCP Section 128.7(b)(3) Sanctions Not Justified Against Represented Party Having No Responsibility For Sanctionable Conduct

Cases: Sanctions

  128.7 Sanctions Sustained Against Attorney Failing to Properly Appeal.      The next sanctions case has a couple of valuable lessons. It is MJB Development Group v. Diamond Escrow, Case No. D053158 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 10, 2010) (unpublished). Lesson #1—a sanctioned attorney must appeal the sanctions award. Although attorney’s client also appealed, this […]

Homeowner Associations: Interveners In CC&R Interpretive Dispute Are Entitled To Fee Recovery As Prevailing Parties Under Civil Code Section 1354

Cases: Homeowner Associations

  Fourth District, Division 3 Finds No Contractual Basis For Award, But Does Find a Statutory Basis.      In an interesting first impression issue, the Fourth District, Division 3—in Renezeder v. Emerald Bay Community Assn., Case Nos. G040657 & G041353 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 8, 2010) (unpublished)—determined that winning interveners in a CC&R dispute

Retainer Agreements: Diane Karpman Has Some Nice Reminders In February 2010 Edition of the California Bar Journal

Cases: Retainer Agreements

       Diane Karpman, a legal ethics expert, has the following reminders for “tuning up” attorney-client retention agreements: Lawyers should consult the State Bar fee forms on the California State Bar website, because they represent the “gold standard”—tested, blessed and familiar to fee arbitrators. Include a disclaimer of any guarantee, result or successful outcome. Specifically

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Chacon Opinion – Involving San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance – Is Published.

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       In our January 19, 2010 post, we examined Chacon v. Litke, Case Nos. A122026 & A123889 (1st Dist., Div. 2 published Feb. 8, 2010), which was unpublished at the time. This decision established that the lodestar analysis was the presumptive method for gauging special fee-shifting provisions, including those enacted under governmental ordinances. On

In The News . . . . Irvine Has Incurred About $1.3 Million In Irvine Business Complex “Vision Plan” Development Fights

In The News

     As reported by Sean Emery in “Irvine legal fees in development fight run $1.3 million” (available for reading in the February 6, 2010 edition of The Orange County Register), the City of Irvine has incurred about $1.3 million in various legal fights over the Irvine Business Complex “vision plan”—an urban revitalization project near the

Class Action And Arbitration Crossover: Appellate Court Affirms Arbitrator Computational Error Correction In Class Action Attorney’s Fee Allocation Dispute

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Class Actions

First District, Division 1 Addresses Claimed Conflict Between JAMS Rules and CCP Arbitration Correction Provision.      Here is a decision that involves consideration of class action and arbitration crossover issues.      Two attorneys deserving of attorney’s fees in a substantial class action settlement entered into an agreement among themselves on the allocation of fees, calling

Costs: Court Of Appeal Affirms Determination On Some Gnarly Costs Issues

Uncategorized

Trial Court Has Inherent Discretion to Strike Costs Memo on Due Process Grounds, Limited Reversal Does Not Necessarily Vacate Prior Costs Award, and Post-Remittitur Costs Are Allowed in Trial Court’s Discretion.      Although it might put you to sleep to recount the unusual procedural setting of the next case, Apex Wholesale, Inc. v. Fry’s Electronics,

California Disabled Persons Act: State Appellate Decision Finds That ADA Does Not Preempt, So Prevailing Defendant Entitled To Fee Award Without Showing Action Was Frivolous, Unreasonable, Or Groundless

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Preemption, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

First District, Division 4 Disagrees with Ninth Circuit’s Hubbard Decisions.      In our July 3, 2008 and January 12, 2009 posts, we discussed the Ninth Circuit’s Hubbard decisions (Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, 531 F.2d 983 (9th Cir. 2008) and Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, 554 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2009)), which held that a mandatory award

Scroll to Top