Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General Statute: CEQA Winner Denied Fees Where Win Was On Technical Issues Of Relatively Narrow Scope

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Third District Affirms Fee Denial Where Project Scope Went Ahead After Correction of Minor Blemishes.      California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5) requires a significant public benefit as an indispensable element for fee recovery. These requests are often brought by winners in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Pub. Resources Code, […]

Statutory Fees: Attorney’s Fees Motion Preserves Fee Request, With Claimants Not Having To File Costs Memorandum Seeking Fees

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Prevailing Party

Second District, Division 3 Rebuffs Contrary Technical Argument.      In Brownstein v. Smith, Case No. B205864 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 1, 2009), plaintiff lost a condominium dispute against other condo owners arising out of CC&Rs. Defendants were entitled to seek fees under Civil Code section 1354(a), a fee-shifting provision applying to parties seeking to

CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions: Obey The Safe Harbor Provisions Or Be Precluded!

Cases: Sanctions

  Second District, Division 7 Requires Compliance By the Numbers.      Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman, Case No. B209863 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 1, 2009) (certified for publication) involved a plaintiff wage/hour class member that brought an independent action against defendant Allstate and class counsel alleging negligence in the claim filing process. Allstate’s and

Civil Code Section 1717: Sixth District Affirms Trial Court Denial Of Fees To Defendant Where Plaintiff Dismissed Both Contract And Fraud Claims

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Sixth District Applies Reasoning of Santisas.      The next case shows how appellate courts apply a pragmatic standard in gauging whether a party prevailed in order to recover attorney’s fees, even after a voluntarily dismissal of a fraud count where fees might be recoverable under an expansive Purchase Agreement clause.      Almog v. Mueller,

Receivership Fees: Court Of Appeal Affirms $96,000 Fee Request For Receiver And His Counsel, Assessing Against Parties To The Litigation And Modifying Judgment So That Bankrupt Party’s Principal Bore A Proportionate Share

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Sanctions

Fourth District, Division 1 Sanctions Party and His Counsel for Not Notifying It About a Bankruptcy Case with Automatic Stay Implications.      The next case is not that remarkable for affirming a $96,000 award of fees to a receiver and his counsel, but reminds us that the trial court can equitably divide the fees against

CCP 998: Unapportioned 998 Offer To Plaintiffs Resulted In Denial Of Substantial Expert Witness Fees To Prevailing Party

Cases: Section 998

First District, Division 3 Holds That 998 Offer Was Invalid, Requiring Plaintiffs To Conditionally Agree On Some Apportionment Between Themselves.      Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers require serious crafting to make sure they are valid. One of the cardinal rules is that, absent identical or indivisible interests among the offerees, the offer must

Judgments: Court Of Appeal Affirms Refusal To Enforce Judgment Against Attorney Where Attorney Legitimately Performed Services And Was Paid Fees Before Imposition of Constructive Trust Against Client’s Property

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Third District Finds No Basis to Make Attorney Liable for Judgment Against Client.      In Monier-Kilgore v. Flores, Case No. C054502 (3d Dist. June 30, 2009) (unpublished), an attorney was paid about $532,000 in fees after helping his clients collect insurance proceeds from two recalcitrant insurers (receiving his contingency portion) and defending clients against plaintiffs’

Class Actions: $3 Million Fee/Costs Award Affirmed in B&P Section 17200 Consumer Privacy Class Action Against Bank of America

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar

First District, Division 5 Rejects Clear Sailing Clause/Class Counsel Conflict Challenges to Fee Award.      In the next case that we review, the Court of Appeal dealt with “clear sailing clauses” in class action settlements and the claim that class counsel conflicts in obtaining fees need “structural” review. The appellate panel found that these clauses

Private Attorney General Statute: The Great Park Search For CEO Document Disclosure Requires Award Of Fees To Minority Directors

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Fourth District, Division Three Reverses Trial Court Denial of Fees Under CCP Section 1021.5 in Orange County Superior Court Action.      “The Great Park”—the plan to develop the former El Toro Marine property into a park—has drawn widespread publicity given charges that Larry Agran and other Irvine City Council members have dominated the Orange County

Scroll to Top