Author name: Marc Alexander

Fee-Sharing Agreement: Defendant Clients Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Where No Fee Entitlement in Fee-Sharing Agreement

Cases: Referral Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Fees Clause in Contingency Agreement Was Inconsequential.      Earlier, in our September 21, 2008 post, we reported on Strong v. Beydoun, 166 Cal.App.4th 1398 (2008), where defendant clients owed no unjust enrichment recovery to an attorney who failed to obtain clients’ signatures to a fee-sharing agreement with clients’ other counsel. […]

Off Topic: Falling D&O Coverage Raises Fears of More Difficult Settlements of Plaintiff Securities Class Actions/Derivative Suits

Cases: Insurance, Off Topics

Settlements May Depend More on Personal Contributions from Sued Officers and Directors, Reports Recent Article from The National Law Journal.      According to Amanda Bronstad’s April 17, 2009 article, “As D&O Coverage Falls, Plaintiffs Lawyers Fees at Risk,” published in The National Law Journal and available for reading at LAW.COM, plaintiff shareholder actions—mainly securities class

Civil Code Section 1717: Court Of Appeal Affirms Award Of One Half Of Requested Fees Based On Tardiness of Raising Compulsory Cross-claim Waiver Issue

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Rationale Parallels Result by Different Division of Second District in Superior Property of Carson v. Regency Outdoor Advertising.      In our April 17, 2009 post, we examined Superior Property of Carson LLC v. Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc., a Second District, Division 3 unpublished decision that affirmed a substantial fee award under Civil Code section 1717,

Off Topics: Here Is A Three-Fer—Bankruptcy Work Booming, Rehab Investment Companies Get Substantial Fee Arbitration Award, And Mepco Obtains Fee Award Against Saddleback Valley Unified School District

Off Topics

Bankruptcy Fees Are Awhirl In Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy.      The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. has certainly been a financial boon for many involved law and investment banking firms.      Christopher Scinta and Linda Sandler, in their April 13, 2009 article “Lehman Brothers Law Firm Weil Gotschal Seeks $55 Million in Fees” (available for

Family Law: Wife Was Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Award Under Family Code Section 2030

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

First District, Division 3 Affirms Fee Denial; Wife Also Hit With $4,000 in Sanctions Under Section 271.      Ex-wife was married over 18 years to a successful attorney, who was apparently generous in both support payments and settlement equalizations in dissolution proceedings—at least according to the Court of Appeal. There were substantial assets to divide,

Unruh Act: Court Of Appeal Affirms $12,436 Attorney’s Fees Award Based On Limited Success Of Plaintiff

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  In a Split Opinion, Second District, Division 6 Rejects Plaintiff’s Requested $24,871.75 In Light of His Recovery of $4,000 Minimum Statutory Damages.      In cases involving mandatory fee-shifting statutes (such as the Unruh Act, Civil Code section 52(a)), we have seen an emerging theme that encompasses a large number of attorney’s fees recoveries: the

Nearly $900,000 In Attorney’s Fees Affirmed In Billboard Litigation

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Second District, Division 3 Finds Defendant Lessors Prevailed Despite Claim of “Triplicative” Work By Three Law Firms.      The next one is a wild one and illustrates that substantial attorney’s fees will be awarded under Civil Code section 1717 once the court determines which litigants “prevailed” by achieving their main objectives in the germane

Section 998: Plaintiff With Unity of Interest Cannot Reject 998 Offer Without Requesting Clarification From Offeror

Cases: Section 998

  Third District Reaffirms Validity of Peterson in Unpublished Decision Involving Individual Plaintiff Who Could Compromise Both Personal and Representative Issues.      In Van Alstyne v. Carter, Case No. C056440 (3d Dist. Apr. 14, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a crop damage case involving $1,200 in damages and an injunctive request after defendants defensed plaintiff through

Sanctions: $1,857.50 Sanctions Against Insurer Vacated As Unauthorized Under Statute Or Court Rule

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Settlement

  Second District, Division 7 Reverses Award in Published Decision.      For years, insurance carriers have raised due process concerns to their participation in mediation and mandatory settlement conferences, although more and more court rules require their participation in these processes. However, the next case illustrates that carriers are not subject to “bad faith” settlement

Scroll to Top