Author name: Marc Alexander

Settlement Stipulation Calling For Deed Of Trust Implicitly Bound Defaulting Party To Fees Clause Even Though Stipulation Had No Such Clause

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Settlement

Second District, Division Four So Holds in Interesting Settlement Stipulation Default Dispute.      In past posts, we have explored some cases that hold the absence of a fees clause in a settlement stipulation prevents a creditor from obtaining a fee recovery after the debtor defaults. See our October 29, 2008 post on Stansbury and Execute […]

Mike and Marc Publish Article in California Litigation, the Journal of the Litigation Section, State Bar of California

Off Topics

Article is Entitled, "When the American Rule Doesn't Apply:  Attorney's Fees as Damages in California Litigation"      The co-contributors to this blawg, William M. ("Mike") Hensley and Marc Alexander, have published an article about attorney's fees as damages in California Litigation, the Journal of the Litigation Section, State Bar of California, Volume 21, Number 3, 2008,

Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Refusal To Award Attorney’s Fees To Defendants In Copyright Infringement and Lanham Act Case

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Federal Court of Appeals Summarizes Governing Standards In These Intellectual Property Areas.      The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has a nice discussion of the standards governing award of attorney’s fees to defendants in copyright infringement and Lanham Act cases. The discussion occurred in Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales and Marketing, Case Nos. 06-55806

Workers’ Compensation Fee Award: Law Firm Not Required To Make Restitution of Fee Award Where Worker Client Engaged in Fraud, But Law Firm Not Complicit

Cases: Workers' Compensation

     Third District Affirms Decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) Not Requiring Fee Restitution from Worker's Attorneys.      We would like to introduce workers' compensation practitioners to our blog. We examine a recent unpublished decision of interest on a fee restitution request, which was denied by the WCAB and subsequently the Third District

Deeds of Trust: Post-Foreclosure Lender Entitled To Recovery of Attorney’s Fees Under Trust Deed Provision

Cases: Deeds of Trust

Fourth District, Division Two Finds Borrower’s Post-Foreclosure Unsuccessful Challenge Required Award of Fees to Foreclosing Lender.      The next case should be of interest to lenders in these days where borrowers are “pulling out” all the stops after a foreclosure to regain possession of the foreclosed property. The lender in the next case was denied

Court of Appeal Reverses 88% “Haircut” In Fee Award to Landlord in ADA Indemnity Dispute With Tenant

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division One Rules That Lower Court May Have Not Used Proper Lodestar Determination Factors in Drastically Cutting Fee Request, Suggesting It Parts Company From Reasoning in The Second District’s EnPalm Decision.      Notwithstanding the breadth of the abuse of discretion standard, the next case illustrates that appellate court will overturn fee awards

Cases Under Review: California Supreme Court Hears Argument On Two Cases Involving Fee Issues

Cases: Cases Under Review

Validity of Retainer Agreement Contractual Arbitration Provisions and Pro Per Attorney Defendant Eligibility for 128.7 Sanctions At Issue. Yesterday, the California Supreme Court heard argument on the following two cases of interest in the fee recovery arena: Schatz v. Allen Matkins Lack Gamble & Mallory LLP, Case No. S150371 (formerly published at 146 Cal.App.4th 674):

HOA Dispute: No Prevailing Party Found In Upscale Homeowner Dispute Where One Homeowner Recovered $2,000 In Damages For Fraud

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

Fourth District, Division Three Determines That Thrust of Lawsuit Was Not CC&R Enforcement and Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Finding No One Was the Prevailing Party For Purposes of a Fee Award.      Plaintiff and defendants are next-door neighbors in a South Orange County upscale residential common area project subject to CC&Rs.

CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions: Unpublished Decision Is A Primer On How To Seek Them And On Procedural Requisites For Their Imposition

Cases: Sanctions

  Seeking Party Does Everything Right, But Has Sanctions Award Reversed Based Upon Imposition on Wrong Persons.      Nagy v. Willow Creek Community Services Dist., Case No. A118909 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 4, 2008) (unpublished) is an excellent primer on the procedural and substantive elements of obtaining an imposition of sanctions under Code of

HOA Dispute: Homeowners Win Substantial Fee Award Which Is Reversed and Remanded For Mathematical Calculation Errors

Cases: Homeowner Associations

Fourth District, Division Three Remands $522,216 Fee Award For Recalculation, Rebuffs Homeowners’ Attempt to Have Lower Court Ignore Overbilling/Inefficiency Reductions, and Refuses To Allow Award of Nonstatutory Costs.      Palm trees are certainly a common vista around Southern California. They also generate frequent litigation in common interest developments, where homeowners battle each other or the

Scroll to Top