Author name: Marc Alexander

SLAPP: Trial Courts Have Discretion To Award Fees In Anti-SLAPP Proceeding Where Plaintiff Dismisses Without Prejudice … Especially Where The Result Is Not “Inevitable”

Cases: SLAPP

Second District, Division 3 Allows Dismissal of Action, But Does Not Prevent Trial Court From Considering Defense Request for Fees.      This next case is an interesting one and may not be the favorite of defendants bringing anti-SLAPP motions (and hoping to recoup attorney’s fees as the eventual prevailing party). It considers the impact of […]

Discovery Sanctions: $3,587.00 Deposition Sustained Because It Is Collateral And Not Independently Appealable Until Later

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Sixth District Provides a Good Lesson in Properly Timing Appeal of Discovery Sanctions Under $5,000.      This next unpublished case, in a 3-0 unpublished decision from the Sixth District, is a good reminder on when the appeal of smaller discovery sanctions orders—under $5,000—is properly made.      In Stough v. Klure, Case No. H034000 (6th

Eminent Domain: $288,537.75 Litigation Expense Award In Favor Of Condemnee Petroleum Franchisee Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Eminent Domain

Third District Finds No Federal Preemption and Sustains Conclusion that Litigation Expense Award Was Justifiable Based on Condemnor’s Final Offer.      In our category “Eminent Domain,” we have reviewed cases discussing Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410, which allows a lower court to award condemnee its litigation expenses (including attorney’s fees) upon finding that condemnor’s

SLAPP: Anti-SLAPP Fee Award Of $50,711.31 Sustained On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

  Second District, Division 3 Does Split on Merits Affirmance.      In our category “SLAPP,” we have surveyed many California decisions involving appeal of mandatory fee-shifting awards in favor of prevailing defendants in anti-SLAPP proceedings. Both the fee requests and eventual awards can be sizable in nature, although lower courts frequently award much less than

Civil Code Section 1717: Nonsignatories Who Were Intended To Be Parties Can Be Entitled To Contractual Fee Recovery Even Though Contractual Clauses Are Very Limited In Nature

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 4 Explores Some “Nooks and Crannies” of Section 1717 in Unpublished Opinion.      This next case, albeit unpublished, is a very scholarly discussion of Civil Code section 1717, exploring nonsignatory and fee clause breadth issues. And, best for us, only a challenge to a denial of attorney’s fees is involved. So, with

Routine Costs: Prevailing Party Determination Is A Pragmatic One Where More Than Monetary Relief Is Involved

Cases: Costs

No One Prevailed in Noncompete Invalidation Battle.      Where more than monetary relief is involved or mixed results are reached, the trial court has substantial leeway in determining which litigant, if any, prevailed in litigation for routine costs purposes. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1032(a)(4).) The next case illustrates this well, and also shows that appellate

Discovery Sanctions: Monetary And Terminating Sanctions Affirmed For Repeated Discovery Disputes

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Sanctions Were No Abuse of Discretion.      The next case is one in which the Fourth District, Division 3 affirmed monetary and terminating sanctions against either plaintiff’s attorney or plaintiff based on failure to respond to requests or failing to be candid in electronic discovery matters. This shows how one

Reverse POOF!: Losing Homeowners, After Modification On Appeal, Are Entitled To Pursue Recovery Of Court Costs As Prevailing Parties

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

  Fifth District Determines Unlicensed Contractors May Not Offset Reimbursement/Disgorgement Claims Under Unlicensed Contractors Law.      Here is a spin on our category POOF!, where a reversal usually means a fee/costs award goes away for the time being. This next case is a reverse POOF!, where a denial of a costs award was reversed and

Scroll to Top