Author name: Marc Alexander

Family Law: Section 271 Sanctions Award Affirmed On Appeal Even Where Fee Recovery Encompassed Fees Not Tied To Loser’s Failure To Cooperate.

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Family Law

  Fourth District, Division One Sustains $3,000 Award Against Husband.      In our category “Cases: Family Law Awards,” we have reviewed past decisions discussing Family Code section 271, which allows a family judge to award fees as a sanctions against a litigant or counsel who frustrates the policy of encouraging settlement or cooperation in family […]

Withdrawn Cross-Claim Subject to Fee Shifting Means No Prevailing Party Under Retention “Prompt Payment” Statute

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Owners Did Not Prevail Because Contractor Withdrew Cross-Claim During Deposition and Never Pursued Recovery Under It.      Courts like to encourage narrowing of disputes by litigants. The next case illustrates how a non-prevailing contractor avoided attorney’s fees exposure under Civil Code section 3260(g), which authorizes fees/costs to the prevailing party involving a claim that

Arbitration: Arbitrator’s Fee Award Modified By Appellate Court Based On Finding “No Anchor” For Fee Recovery

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division 2 Demonstrates Appellate Scrutiny Of Basis For Fee Award.      In past posts (see, e.g., our July 15, 2008 post on Patel v. Sagar), we have reviewed appellate decisions involving scrutiny of arbitration awards. Several decisions have affirmed arbitrator fee awards even though there was no clear basis, either by contract or

CCP Section 1021.4: Pedestrian Skater Sustains $90,000 Fee Award For Winning Jury Verdict Arising Out Of Drunk Driving Negotiated Criminal Settlement

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division Seven Also Finds That Defendant’s 998 Offer Was Too Uncertain to Enforce.      The next case involves a personal injury case, involving an interesting discussion of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4’s fee-shifting provision and the uncertain nature of the defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer involving other litigation lurking

Fraud Cases: Don’t Forget That You May Get Fees Under Robinson Helicopter

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Second District, Division Seven Awards Fees To Broker Based On Fraud and Fees Clause in Brokerage Agreement.      Normally, Civil Code section 1717 does not allow recovery for fraud counts, unless the fees clause is broadly worded. (See our category “Cases: Section 1717.”) However, practitioners should not forget that fee recovery may be possible

Anti-SLAPP: Trial Court Has Discretion To Reduce Lodestar and Award Fees Reasonably Expended By Counsel

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Second District, Division 8 Reduces Requested Fees/Costs From $7,737 to $2,580 to Winning Anti-SLAPP Victor.      Discretion, discretion, discretion. Awfully tough standard to win on appeal in any context, even when you win fees as a victorious plaintiff successfully prosecuting an anti-SLAPP motion. The breadth of discretion is illustrated in the next unpublished decision

Tort of Another: Plaintiffs Suing For Expenses In Suing Successor Property Owners Under Nuisance/Trespass Theories Not Entitled To Recover Fees From Predecessor Property Owners

Cases: Fees as Damages

  Sixth District Narrowly Construes Scope of “Tort of Another” Fee Exception.      In our November 13, 2008 post, we noted that co-contributors Marc and Mike wrote an article on recovering attorney’s fees as damages in the Vol. 21, No. 3 issue of the 2008 California Litigation. One of the discussed topics was the “tort

Appealability: Failure to Timely File Reconsideration Ruling Resulted In Dismissal of Appeal Challenging $70,408.75 Fee Award

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines

Fourth District, Division Three Determines Notice of Reconsideration Ruling Does Not Need Any “Magic” Language to Trigger Running of Appeal Period.      The next case is an interesting reminder to hit the books when determining what triggers the running of the appeal period in the context of reconsideration rulings.      In Walshe v. Gelfand, Case

Scroll to Top