Author name: Marc Alexander

Prevailing Party: Tenant Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees As Prevailing Party Where Landlord Got To Obtain Some Of A Security Deposit And Tenant Obtained Some Of The Security Deposit

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 7 Sustained “No Prevailing Party” Determination Under Civil Code Section 1717.      One of our leading cases is Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995). It is must reading for all litigators, and might save your client a substantial amount of fees if you can talk the clients into believing that Civil […]

Blog Update: Burlage Decision On Rehearing …

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: POOF!

No Different Result.      On our September 2, 2009 post, we reported on the Burlage decision, which reversed confirmation of a substantial arbitration decision (complete with the overturning of a large fee award). We can now report that, on October 20, 2009, the Second District, Division 6, issued an opinion on rehearing that came to

Retainer Agreements: LLC Managing Member Held Liable To Former Attorneys For $210,613.39

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  First District, Division 5 Affirms Judgment Against LLC Managing Member.      LLC managing member signed a retainer letter with an affiliated management company and paid litigation attorneys through checks drawn on dba accounts, before deciding to terminate the attorneys having a sizable receivable. After a lot of procedural and lower court tussles, attorneys finally

In The News . . . . Orly Taitz Of Mission Viejo Sanctioned $20,000 By Georgia Federal District Judge Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11

Cases: Sanctions, In The News

District Judge Clay D. Land Issues Sanction in 43-Page Opinion. Mission Viejo attorney/dentist Orly Taitz—who heads the "birther" movement (trying to oust President Obama from the presidency based on the allegation that he did failed to produce a satisfactory birth certificate)—has been in the news frequently for her filing of federal court actions on the

Private Attorney General Statute: Moreno Valley Adjacent Property Owner Obtains $131,810.89 In Attorney’s Fees Against Appealing Developer in CEQA Case

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Fourth District, Division 2 Finds CCP Section 1021.5 Requirements Were Satisfied.      Under our category “Private Attorney General Statute,” we have explored the requirements for an award of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. (After all, in a return to basics, the “American Rule” does allow a prevailing party to obtain

Enforcement of Judgments: Judgment Debtors Beating Judgment Creditor Claims In Interpleader Entitled To Awards Of Costs As Prevailing Party

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Judgment Creditor Also Not Entitled to Prevailing Party Fees Under Judgment Enforcement Statute Even Though No Net Monetary Recovery Gained Under the Statute.      Here is a fairly arcane decision for you practitioners that are judgment enforcement specialists, affirming an award of costs to judgment debtors and denying judgment creditor’s appeal that he was

Family Law: Attorney’s Fees Award Gets Reversed For Lack of Complete Income and Expense Declaration

Cases: Family Law

Fourth District, Division 2 Stresses Need for Adequate Documentation of Need.      In our category “Family Law,” we have reviewed numerous decisions that grant or deny (partially or entirely) fee requests for awards based on need under Family Code sections 2030/2032.      Almost all the decisions, in line with California Rules of Court requirements, direct

Consumer Statutes: Court Of Appeal Reverses Refusal To Award Reasonable Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiff Under Settlement Arrangement With Car Manufacturer

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Settlement, Cases: Standard of Review

Fourth District, Division 3 Utilizes De Novo Review to Determine Plaintiff’s Entitlement to Fee Award.      The next case demonstrates how the standard of review can be appeal determinative. The appellate panel utilized the de novo standard, which led to the conclusion that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff entitlement to fees under car

CCP 1021. 5 And Mootness: Appellate Court Determines Mootness Doctrine Does Not Preclude Review Of $78,897.95 Fee Award Against Clerk And Registrar, Reversing Fee Award Based On Merits Reversal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 5 Also Reverses Fee Award Against Clerk, Even Though Only Registrar Appealed the Merits Judgment.      Here is an interesting one for our appellate followers. It primarily deals with a mootness issue and its interplay with the fee award in the case.      In Carson Citizens for Reform v. Kawagoe, Case

Scroll to Top