Author name: Marc Alexander

CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions: $118,584.95 Sanctions Levied For Jury Mistrial Based On Corporate Plaintiff’s Lack Of Capacity To Sue

Cases: Sanctions

Second District, Division 1 Sustains Substantial Sanctions Award on Appeal.      Sanctions can sting. The next case shows it–and we bloggers are still smarting from having read the case.      BCX International, Inc. v. York, Case No. B198375 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 10, 2009) (unpublished), briefly put, involved a Massachusetts corporate plaintiff that, during […]

Bankruptcy: Bankruptcy Judges Have Discretion In Awarding Fees Against Involuntary Petitioners Based On A “Totality of Circumstances” Test

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts

Ninth Circuit Rejects Awarding Fees Based Upon Tort Concepts or Class Theories of Liability.      Bankruptcy practitioners, we have one for you. Do not despair. If we find them or you point them out (a call for interactive discussion with us), we will report on attorney’s fees in the insolvency arena. The next case happens

Routine Costs: Prevailing Cross-Defendant Denied Costs Where Defendant/Cross-Complainant Obtained Relief Under Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Complaint

Cases: Costs

Fourth District, Division 2 Affirms Trial Court’s Award of No Costs to Cross-Defendant.      Plaintiff Gonzales brought a complaint against defendant Falzone involving various investment/partnership disputes, with Falzone filing a cross-complaint against Gonzales. After a bench trial, Falzone obtained relief under Gonzales’ complaint but was granted no relief under his cross-complaint. The trial court also

Federal Class Actions: Fee Reversionary Settlement Clauses And Percentage Of Recovery Considered By Ninth Circuit In Unpublished Decision

Cases: Class Actions

Court of Appeals Sustains Validity of Fee Reversion Clause Based on Exceptional Results and Affirms Percentage of Recovery Fee Award.      The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered two attorney’s fees issues in the context of a class action, albeit in an unpublished memorandum decision. Glass v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 07-15278

Private Attorney General Statute: Northern California District Judge Awards CCP Section 1021.5 Fees Of $1,423,127 To Plaintiffs Recovering $153,150 Against Taser Manufacturer

Cases: Costs, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Judge Refuses to Apply a Multiplier and Denies Costs to Successful City in Same Lawsuit.      Robert C. Heston, Jr. died after Tasers were deployed against him by Salinas police officers, death resulting in the aftermath of cardiac arrest. His mother/father and estate executor sued Salinas, the individual police officers, and TASER International (the manufacturer

Sanctions: $8,836 In Various Sanctions Affirmed Against Plaintiff Losing Claims Through Demurrer Or Summary Judgment

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

Court of Appeal Reverses $15,611.50 in 128.7 Sanctions Because “Safe Harbor” Papers Were Not Identical to Filed 128.7 Motion Papers.      In a lengthy but informative unpublished opinion, the Fourth District, Division One affirmed and reversed some sanctions components assessed against a plaintiff who was defensed through demurrer and summary judgment law-and-motion proceedings in his

CCP 998 Offers: Later 998 Offers Extinguish Prior 998 Offers

Cases: Section 998

Second District, Division 1 Follows Palmer‘s Bright-Line Rule.      In a very interesting unpublished case, plaintiffs suffered a nonsuit after the trial court struck a medical expert’s testimony based upon the expert not giving certain causation opinions during his deposition, even though plaintiffs’ counsel had provided notice three months before trial that causation would be

Private Attorney General Statute: Veterans Group Receives $20,000 Out Of Requested $112,875 In Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Veterans Group’s Failure to Provide Adequate Appellate Record Left Intact Lodestar Reduction by Trial Court.      The opening sentence of the next case, involving a reduced fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, certainly caught our attention: “This is a skirmish over attorney fees after the parties settled the underlying case.”     

Indemnity Clauses: True Indemnification Clauses Do Not Give A Basis For Attorney’s Fees Recovery

Cases: Indemnity

Fourth District, Division 1 Follows Other Precedents We Have Reviewed.      In our category, “Cases: Indemnity,” we have seen that California appellate courts will not stretch a third-party indemnification clause into a first-party attorney’ fees clause for purposes of fees recovery. The leading cases of Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, 13 Cal.App.4th 949.

Appealability: Separately Appeal A Postjudgment Fee Award Or Suffer The Cruel Sword of Dismissal!

Cases: Appealability

  Second District, Division 2 Reinforces Message Sent in Prior Posts.      In our category: “Cases: Appealability,” we have stressed an important message that emerges from California state court cases: notwithstanding some nuances in unusual situations, litigants wishing to challenge attorney’s fees awards should always appeal the postjudgment fees award in order to preserve appellate

Scroll to Top