Author name: Marc Alexander

Arbitration Fee Awards: Court Of Appeal Affirms Award Where It Was Within The Scope Of An Arbitration Contractual Clause

Cases: Arbitration

Fourth District, Division Three Determined that Arbitrator’s Award Was Governed By Arbitration, Not Reference, Principles.      In our July 15, 2008 post on Patel v. Sagar, we discussed a situation where the Second District affirmed an arbitrator’s fee award based on the notion that the arbitrator has considerable leeway to apply “equitable principles” in awarding […]

Cumis Fee Arbitration: “To Arbitration We Shall All Go”—“Mixed” Action With Bad Faith Allegations Does Not Take Cumis Dispute Out Of Arbitration Statute.

Cases: Insurance

Second District, Division Seven Disagrees With Reasoning in Younesi.      In the absence of contractual arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution process agreed upon by the interested parties, Civil Code section 2860(c) mandates final and binding arbitration of any state court dispute between the insured and insurer over fees to be reimbursed to insured's independent

FEHA: Losing Plaintiff Suffers Adverse Costs Award, With No Need To Weigh Whether Plaintiff Has The Ability to Pay

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

  Fourth District, Division One Rejects Engrafting Rosenman Requirements Into Routine Costs Proceedings.      In our earlier posts of December 11, 2008 on Trisler and December 16, 2008 on Young, we discussed the Rosenman requirements in FEHA cases: the trial court must make specific written findings as to why the action was frivolous and about

Civil Code Section 1717: Fees Incurred In Previously Dismissed Action Properly Allowed In Refiled Action Where First Action Work Necessarily Used in Second Action.

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division Three Also Faces Grant/P R Burke Appeal Untimeliness Issue.      Two interesting issues were raised in Presiding Justice Sills’ opinion on behalf of the Fourth District, Division Three in Kenney v. Tanforan Park Shopping Center, Case Nos. G038323 & G039372 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2008) (unpublished). The first concerns timeliness

Routine Costs: Trial Judge Found To Have Inferentially Granted 30-Day Extension to File Costs Memorandum When Granting Costs Where Memorandum Untimely Filed Under CRC 3.1700(a)

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines

Fourth District, Division One Also Finds Untimeliness Argument Waived, But Also Decides Merits in Favor of Costs Claimant.      California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1) does contain a time deadline for filing and service of a costs memorandum after mailing of notice of entry of judgment or dismissal—15 days. The lower court has also discretion

HOA Fee Award: No Error Where No Evidence Submitted To Backup Argument That Claimed Fees Were Unreasonable

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division Three Finds the Lack of Evidence to be Dispositive.      If you are going to challenge a fee claim as being unreasonable or excessive in nature, you need to be prepared to present evidence to back up these arguments. The failure to do so will likely lead to affirmance of a fee

Brandt Fees: Don’t Be Stubborn—Apportion!

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Insurance

Third District Affirms Refusal to Award Any Fees to Insured Who Balked at Apportionment.      Co-contributors Marc and Mike have written an article, “When The American Rule Doesn’t Apply: Attorney’s Fees As Damages In California Litigation,” published in 21 California Litigation, No. 3, at pages 19, 22-24 (2008), which has a discussion on attorney’s fees

Civil Code Section 1717 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 998: Poof! Substantial Fee/Cost Award Reversed Where Underlying Judgment Was Reversed

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

    Fourth District, Division Three Finds That Abandonment of Action Must Be Clear Before Dismissal Is Entered; With Dismissal Gone, Fee/Cost Award Is Also Reversed.      California litigators frequently have heard the mantra that "cases are to be tried or heard on the merits." In line with that, there are corollary principles, such as pretrial

Civil Rights: Ninth Circuit Reverses And Remands District Court’s Refusal To Award Fees To Plaintiffs Obtaining Both A Preliminary And A Permanent Injunction

Cases: Civil Rights

District Court Did Not Identify Special Circumstances Rendering a Fee Award Unjust Under Civil Rights Fee-Shifting Statute.      Six media corporation plaintiffs obtained both a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction against the Nevada Secretary of State pursuant to the federal civil rights statute, which also has a fee-shifting statute in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiffs

Scroll to Top