Author name: Marc Alexander

Judgment Creditor Fee Awards: You Must Have A Fee Award In the Underlying Judgment To Collect Further Fees Under CCP Section 685.404

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

First District, Division Five Implicitly Agrees With Second District’s Globalist Decision.      In our post of October 28, 2008, we reviewed the Fourth District, Division Three’s decision in Globalist Internet Technologies, Inc. v. Reda, 167 Cal.App.4th 1267 (2008), where the appellate court ruled that fees incurred in the defense of a related settlement enforcement proceedings […]

Family Law Fee Awards: Trio Of Unpublished Decisions Discuss Fee Predicates and Standards of Review Upon Appeal of Fee Awards

Cases: Family Law

First District, Division One and Fourth District, Division One Decide Fee Award Challenges Under Family Code Sections 271 and 2030/2032.      Here is a trilogy of unpublished decisions involving review of fee awards in family law matters. Marriage of Hagan – Family Code section 271      The First District, Division One seemed to struggle with

Sanctions: Attorney and Her Clients Sanctioned Under CCP Section 128.5 For Deliberately Revealing Trade Secret Despite Entry Into A Protective Arrangement

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions

Third District Affirms Sanctions Order of $43,678.42 Against Attorney and Her Clients.      Our fellow blawg “The Complex Litigator” has an excellent November 25, 2008 post on Wallis v. PHL Associates, Inc., Case No. C056200 (3d Dist. Nov. 25, 2008) (certified for publication). We will not review the facts in-depth, because “The Complex Litigator” post

“No Wine Before Its Time”: Attorney’s Fees Awarded At San Francisco Counsel Rates For Napa Case Work; Photocopying Of Exhibits Not Used At Trial Can Still Be Awarded As Discretionary Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

First District, Division Two Finds Relevant Geographic Market for Hourly Rate Determination Not Limited to Case Venue and Resolves Split in Decisional Authority on Costs in Favor of Trial Court Discretion.      As the Thanksgiving Holidays have drawn close, our state appellate courts have issued a plethora of interesting opinions in the attorney’s fees/costs arena.

Pre- And Post-Arbitration Fees: Trial Courts Can Award Even If Arbitrator Denies Fees For Arbitration Work

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Sixth District So Rules In Sustaining Fee Award For Some Work By Winning Litigant’s Attorneys Before and After Arbitration Proceeding.      Defendant suffered an adverse arbitration award of $67,089.16 to plaintiff for failing to pay plaintiff his value in a health center pursuant to a second buy-out agreement. The arbitrator awarded arbitration costs/fees, but ordered

Fee Authorization: No Fees Can Be Awarded Unless Predicate Statute Or Contract Authorizes Their Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division One Sustains Denial of Fee Recovery Without Predicate Underpinnings for an Award.      The first step of any analysis for recovery of fees is to locate a statute or contractual clause authorizing their recovery. Without this, the American Rule will usually preclude any efforts to recoup incurred attorney’s fees in litigation. The

Costs: Messenger Services For Complex Litigation Filings, Counsel Travel For Court Hearings, And Airport Parking/Cab fare For Hearings Can Be Awarded As Costs If Reasonably Necessary To The Conduct Of The Litigation

Cases: Costs, Cases: Standard of Review

Fourth District, Division One Affirms Decision to Award Such Discretionary Costs.      Following entry of judgment, defendant filed a costs memorandum seeking $4,053.75 in filing/motion fees (which were expenses for faxing the filings to messengers who then filed the documents with the court) and $1,140.20 in attorney travel costs for hearing appearances (including airfare, airport

Civil Code Section 1717: Fees Are Not Awardable Where Plaintiff Dismisses Action With Prejudice After The Start of Trial

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Second District, Division Four Also Rejects That Letter Containing Purported CCP Section 998 Offer Was Valid Where Opposing Party Not Given Full Statutory Period Within Which to Accept.      Presiding Justice Epstein, writing for a 3-0 panel of the Second District, Division Four, recently authored an interesting opinion in which attorney’s fees were not allowed

Civil Code Section 1717: Litigant Losing A Demurrer With Leave And Failing To Amend Can Be Exposed To An Adverse Fee Award Despite Ongoing Litigation Between Other Named Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Litigant Failing to Dismiss After Losing a Demurrer With Leave May Be in Danger, Fourth District, Division Two Rules.      Under Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 602, 622 (1998) [see our Leading Cases], litigants potentially exposed to fee awards under Civil Code section 1717 can avoid adverse consequences by voluntarily dismissing their actions way

Family Law: Needs-Based Fee Award Reversed On Due Process Grounds And Litigiousness-Based Fee Award Affirmed Under Abuse of Discretion Standard

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

Second and Sixth District Cases Show That Appellate Record Can Be The Key to Success on Appeal. Needs-Based Fee Award Is Reversed and Remanded      In Marriage of Rothe, Case No. B202733 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 20, 2008) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a lump sum fee award of $92,552.86 in

Scroll to Top