Author name: Marc Alexander

Trial Court Retains Jurisdiction To Award Attorney’s Fees to Prevailing Defendant After Granting A Motion To Quash Based Upon Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Quashing/Lack of Jurisdiction

Sixth District Affirms Grant of $34,492 in Attorney’s Fees.             Our first post was on May 11, 2008, surveying Profit Concepts Mgt., Inc. v. Griffith, 162 Cal.App.4th 950, 955-956 (2008).  In that case, Justice Fybel of our local Santa Ana-based Court of Appeal affirmed an award of attorney’s fees to a defendant […]

Successful Plaintiff Who Protects, Preserves Or Increases A Fund In A Probate Proceeding May Be Entitled To Compensation Under Equitable “Common Fund” Principles

Cases: Probate

First District, Division One Discusses This Equitable Doctrine.             In our September 16, 2008 post, we discussed Estate of Daley, which summarized the normal compensation principles applicable in probate proceedings.  Usually, the court awards compensation as either “ordinary” or “extraordinary” in categorical nature.  “Extraordinary compensation” includes attorney’s fees that the probate court,

Consumer Legal Remedies Act Is Generally Non-Reciprocal In Nature

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Fourth District, Division Three Affirms Denial of Fee Award Where Trial Court Found No Bad Faith on the Part of Losing Plaintiff; Automobile Sales Finance Act Did Not Provide Basis For Fee Award Either.             Certain truisms abound in the California attorney’s fees area.  Each side bears their own respective costs (including

Attorney’s Fees Are Not Recoverable Under Contract Which Has Been Held Inadmissible Under Mediation Confidentiality Statutory Provisions

Cases: Mediation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District So Holds in Published Decision Relating to an Inadmissible Settlement Agreement: Civil Code section 1717 Does Not Trump the Mediation Privilege.             As framed by the Second District, Division Four, the attorney’s fees portion of the case involved a question of first impression—whether attorney’s fees are recoverable under Civil Code

Second Sentence Of Civil Code Section 1717(a) Precludes Restricted Application Of Mutuality Principle Unless Parties Recite That Counsel Was Involved In Negotiation and Execution Of The Contract

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division Eight Reverses Lower Court Determination Denying Fee Based on Limited Scope of Fees Clause.             In enacting Civil Code section 1717, the Legislature made it abundantly clear that mutuality principles are to govern interpretation of attorney’s fees clauses such that unilaterally worded provisions are construed as reciprocal in nature. 

Mobile Homeowners Awarded $350,000 Attorney’s Fees Under The San Rafael Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Court of Appeal Also Determines that Settlement Ambiguity Allows Homeowners An Opportunity to Seek More Fees for Sustaining Result on Appeal.             A mobilehome park owner increased rent to homeowners in the mobilehome park to recoup the costs of capital expenditures.  Following an arbitration, settlement, and lawsuit alleging noncompliance with the arbitration

First District Vacates Attorney’s Fees and Expert Fees Awarded Against School District

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appellate Panel Finds No Basis for Fee Award Because District Did Not Violate “Prompt Payment” Penalty Statute.             Public Contract Code section 7107 is a “prompt payment” statute specifying consequences for a public agency that withholds retention proceeds from a general contractor.  It basically provides that a public agency may withhold from

Scroll to Top