Author name: Marc Alexander

Probate: $170,095 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Decedent’s Son Under Probate Code Section 859 And Attorney’s Fees Surcharged Against The Trust Under Section 15684 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Probate

Son Wrongfully Obtained Decedent’s Personal Property And Sought A Greek House Which Was Found To Belong To The Overall Estate.             The Probate Code has many fee-shifting provisions, most of which are discretionary.  They provide great leeway to the probate court in fashioning an award, given that the probate court is one of equity to […]

Retainer Agreements: Whether Credit Card Processing Charges In California Can Be Passed On To Client Through Retainer Agreement Is An Open Question

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Most Prudent Course Is To Treat It As a Non-reimbursable “Overhead” Expense.             We commend practitioners to read Nicole Nuzzo’s article “The Credit Card Conundrum:  Passing Credit Card Processing Fees On To Client,” published in the December 2022 issue of Orange County Lawyer at pages 56-59.  In this article, she concludes it is an open

In The News: Retired Justice Richard D. Fybel Recently Passed Away

In The News

He Had A Distinguished Legal And Judicial Career, Along With Writing On Important Subjects.             It is with sadness that we report that Retired Justice Richard D. Fybel recently passed away.  He had a distinguished career at Morrison & Foerster LLP, was on the Orange County Superior Court bench for around 2 years, and then

Class Action: Uber Class Action Settlement Challenges Were Not Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Class Actions

Main Reason Was That The Settlement Was Not A “Coupon” Settlement.             The Ninth Circuit, in McKnight v. Hinojosa (Uber Technologies, Inc.), Case Nos. 21-16623 et al. (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2022) (published), affirmed a class action settlement against Uber over certain objectors’ challenges.              The district court approved a class action settlement, after concluding

Appealability, SLAPP: 4/3 DCA Decides That Immediate Appeal Of SLAPP Fee Award Is Not Cognizable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

Appellate Court Sides With One Side In “Irreconcilable Conclusions” On The Appealability Issue.                  In Ibbetson v. Grant, Case No. G060473 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2022) (unpublished), the appellate court was faced with the question of whether an anti-SLAPP fee award was immediately appealable after a prior SLAPP order grant or whether it

Arbitration: Employer’s Failure To Pay Its Share Of Required Arbitration Fees And Costs Within 30 Days Breached The Arbitration Agreement So That Employee Could Pursue Claims In Court

Cases: Arbitration

Issue Was Failure To Pay Fees/Costs For An Arbitration Continuance, But Arbitration Initiation Case Reasoning Was Analogous.              DeLeon v. Juanita’s Foods, Case No. B315394 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 23, 2022) (published) is the next progression from Espinoza v. Superior Court, 83 Cal.App.5th 761, 775-776 (2022), which held that an employer’s failure to timely

Section 1717: $547,532.33 Contractual Fee Award Against Otis Elevator Based On Litigant’s Cross-Complaint Affirmed On Appeal In Duty To Defend Situation

Cases: Section 1717

It Was Irrelevant Who Paid The Fees, Law Of The Case Sustained The Award Based On Earlier Appellate Opinion, And Duty To Defend Ruling Was “On The Contract.”             In Sierra Pacific Properties, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., Case Nos. A162854 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 21, 2022) (unpublished), Otis Elevator was not

Arbitration: Arbitration Claimant Failing To Raise Fee Entitlement Basis As A Ground For Fee Award Waived The Argument In Later Arbitration Confirmation Proceedings

Cases: Arbitration

This Was No Ground To Correct The Award.             In Hollander v. Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. B314018 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 21, 2022) (unpublished), the appellate court rejected an arbitration claimant’s argument that Labor Code fees were unwaivable when the claimant did not articulate that ground as a basis for the fee

Deadlines, Retainer Agreements: Notwithstanding Whether Retainer Agreements Are Avoided, Quantum Meruit Statute Of Limitations Runs From Discharge

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Appellate Court Follows Fracasse.             The Law Firm of Kallis & Associates v. Padgett, Case No. H046063 (6th Dist. Nov. 21, 2022) (unpublished) confirmed that, notwithstanding when a fee agreement is voided by the client, an attorney’s quantum meruit claim generally runs from the time that the law firm was discharged by the client,

Scroll to Top