Author name: Marc Alexander

Prevailing Party And Fee Clause Interpretation Issues: Court Of Appeal Sustains Trial Court Denial Of Fees To Either Side

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Fourth District, Division 1 Utilizes “Pragmatic” Prevailing Party Test and Determines Narrow Fee Clause Did Not Allow For Recovery on Successful Tort Claim.      In a dispute involving a brokerage arrangement with respect to a mobile home, seller won a small compensatory and punitive damages jury verdict against brokers for breach of fiduciary duty, although […]

Discovery Sanctions: Sanctions Against Litigants’ Attorneys Reversed Where Evidence Showed Client Was Responsible For Sanctionable Conduct

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Second District, Division 2 Reverses $3,387.50 Sanctions Award Against Attorneys.      Under various discovery statutes, the trial court has discretion to award discovery sanctions jointly and severally against losing litigant and/or their attorneys. However, attorneys have another defense in their quiver—the “my client made me do it” defense.      The Court of Appeal is Manzanares

Insurance And 998 Offers: 998 Offer Made To Only One Out Of Multiple Insureds Imposes No Good Faith Duty On Insurer To Accept Or Provide Separate Counsel

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

First District, Division 1 Applies Lehto/Strauss to 998 Offers Made to Sued Insureds Rather that Offer Made Directly to Insurer.      Both Lehto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 31 Cal.App.4th 60, 72 (1994) and Strauss v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 26 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1021-1022 (1994) held that an insurer has no “good faith” duty to agree to,

Probate: Attorneys For Trustee Erroneously Denied Fees Based On Incorrect Interpretation of Probate Code Sections 18000-18005 and 15684

Cases: Probate

Second District, Division 8 Reverses Probate Court’s Denial of Fees.      In Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff Inc. v. Bessemer Trust Co. of Calif., N.A., Case No. B209835 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 24, 2009) (unpublished), a probate judge denied trustee’s attorneys petitions for payment of attorney’s fees and costs based on their representation of the

Appellate Routine Costs: Paralegal Fees Not Awardable As Routine Costs On Appeal

Cases: Costs

Fourth District, Division 1 So Rules in Unpublished Decision.      In Jameson v. Desta, Case No. D053089 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 23, 2009) (certified for partial publication, but pertinent part for this post unpublished), the Fourth District, Division 1 held that paralegal fees are not recoverable as “costs on appeal” under California Rules of

Fees As Damages: Fees Incurred In Prior Action And Malicious Prosecution Action Properly Awarded As Damages

Cases: Fees as Damages

   Second District, Division 6 Affirms Substantial Fees As Damages, Minus An Offset.      Substantial fee awards do not necessarily always arrive in the form of postjudgment costs awards. Rather, they can be, and often are, awarded as damages by a trier of fact in certain actions, especially malicious prosecution lawsuits.      Saby v. Louks,

Legal Aid Organizations Receiving Grants Under LSC: Federal Restrictions On Seeking Attorney’s Fees Beat As-Applied Constitutional Challenges

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Ninth Circuit So Rules in Split Decision.      Congress has imposed certain restrictions on legal aid organizations that receive federal grants through the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), including that grantee attorneys cannot claim, collect, or retain statutory attorney’s fees. (45 C.F.R. sec. 1642.3.) Recently, in Legal Aid Services of Oregon v. Legal Services Corporation, Case

Interpleader: No Attorney’s Fees Recoverable Where Neutral Stakeholder Failed To Interplead Funds But Kept Them In Interest-Bearing CODs

Cases: Interpleader

Statutory Basis for Fees Requires Deposit of Disputed Funds Into Court.      Code of Civil Procedure section 386(a) allows a neutral stakeholder of certain funds subject to conflicting claims to commence an interpleader action, deposit the funds into court, and obtain a discretionary fee/costs recovery by the court from the amount deposited into court. In

Fee Clause Interpretation and 998 Offers: Court Of Appeal Remands $400,000 Fee Award against Contractor But Affirms Separate $296,148.84 Against Contractor In Favor of Subcontractor

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision.      Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law.      In The Gifted Schools v. Grahovac Construction Co.,

Fee Clause Interpretation And Allocation: Substantial Fee Award Affirmed Where Fees Clause Was Broad In Nature And All Claims Based On Same Operative Facts

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fourth District, Division 2 Sustains $382,233.25 Fee Award Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.      As we have reminded readers before, a broad fee clause will frequently give winning litigants a “big bonus” for fee recovery purposes: the broader the clause, the better the chances that noncontractual claims will be found to give rise

Scroll to Top