Author name: Marc Alexander

SLAPP: Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript And Indication That The Lower Court Did Consider Degree Of Success In Its Order In Awarding SLAPP Fees Led To Sustaining The Fee Award

Cases: SLAPP

$25,795.50 Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal.             An adequate appellate record is a necessity in modern appellate practice, not to say it did not change from being a necessity long ago.  In Beck v. Yozura, Case No. B313689 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 7, 2022) (unpublished), the trial judge awarded $25,795.50 to a prevailing defendant […]

Arbitration: Arbitrator’s Revised Award Of Fees To Prevailing Defendant Reversed Where Initial Merits Award Expressly Denied Fees To Defendant

Cases: Arbitration

Revised Award Was Not A Mere Correction, But A Substantive Merits Reconsideration And Impermissible New Award.             Taska v. TheRealReal, Inc., Case No. A164130 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 4, 2022) (published) was a situation where an arbitrator found in employer’s favor on the merits and denied employer’s fee request after finding employee’s case was

Section 1717: $321,338.54 Contractual Fee Award To Prevailing Party In Administrative Mandamus Proceeding

Cases: Section 1717

Mandamus Was “On The Contract” Under Section 1717 And Decision Was Final To Defeat Prematurity Argument.             In The Traveler Indemnity Co. v. Lara, Case No. B306897 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 3, 2022) (published), insurance company lost an Insurance Commissioner administrative mandate proceeding concerning whether certain workers compensation agreements issued to it were unenforceable vis-à-vis

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $125,000 Fees/Costs Award Under Public Records Act To Petitioner Was Reversed On Appeal, While The Lower Court’s Denial Of Fees To Responding Party Was Correct

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reason for Reversal As To Petitioner Was That The Responding Party Did Not Improperly Withhold Production Of Documents Responsive To The Original Records Request.             The scope of request made under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6250-6276.40—the PRA) took on special significance in Muchnick v. Regents of the University of California, Case

SLAPP: Plaintiff’s Failure To Timely Appeal SLAPP Merits Defeat Prevented Review Of The Merits; Although Appeal On The SLAPP Fees And Costs To Defendant Was Timely, Plaintiff Failed To Discuss The Fees/Costs Order In Her Appellate Briefing

Cases: SLAPP

Challenges to The Fee/Costs Order Were Forfeited.             Appellate practice is laced with important deadlines and briefing requirements.  Plaintiff failed to follow two important ones in Mitchell v. Dawn Wigeri Van Edema, Case No. C094757 (3d Dist. Nov. 1, 2022) (unpublished).  First, plaintiff failed to timely appeal the SLAPP merits grant within 60 days after

Private Attorney General, Section 998: Plaintiff Properly Denied CCP 1021.5 Fees And $700,000 Section 998 Fees In Favor Of Some Defendants Reversed

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 998

No Public Benefit Conferred By Misleading Proposition 65 Temporary Warnings, And 998 Offer Releases Were Overbroad.      In Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corporation, Case Nos. B309227 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 26, 2022) (published), defendants properly won a summary judgment in a Proposition 65 case when new regulations

Section 998: If You Want A Settlement Agreement And Release As Part Of A 998 Offer, Make Sure To Attach One And Make Releases Narrow So As To Validate The Offer

Cases: Section 998

Otherwise, Unspecified Settlement Terms Are Too Uncertain In Nature.             K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., Case Nos. D0759571/D076833 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 25, 2022) (published) holds that if you, as a CCP offeror, want a settlement agreement or Civil Code section 1542 release as part of the 998 offer, you better

Judgment Enforcement: Trial Court’s Denial On Remand Of Code Of Civil Procedure section 685.040 Fees For Bringing An Unreasonable And Unnecessary Motion To Compel Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Defendants Were Attempting To Comply With The Judgment, But Plaintiffs’ Were Intentionally Thwarting Their Attempts.             In our November 26, 2020 post, we discussed the unpublished decision in Buechler v. Butker, Case No. G058054 (4th Dist. Div. 3 November 23, 2020), wherein the trial court had denied the $37,052.50  in fees sought by plaintiff pursuant to

Scroll to Top