Author name: Marc Alexander

Real Estate Sales Contract Allows Plaintiffs to Recover Attorney’s Fees for Judicial Proceedings Connected with Arbitration

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fifth District Drops Some Tantalizing Dicta About The Causal Relationship Necessary to Conclude Disputes “Arise Out of a Contract” for Purposes of Awarding Fees.             Although one might think that unpublished decisions only involve mundane issues of legal application, our posts have shown that they frequently confront novel issues or provide dicta […]

Plaintiff’s Professional Malpractice Claim, Although Involving A Contractual Relationship, Was Not “On the Contract” So As To Allow Fee Recovery Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

First District Recognizes the Distinction In Affirming Trial Court Decision Refusing To Award Fees to a Winning Plaintiff.             Client retained Former Attorneys to represent his interests as a creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding.  Client signed a retainer agreement providing that Attorneys would use their best efforts to represent Client’s interests and

Discovery Referee Orders–They Can’t Be Issued Ex Parte and Cannot Order Litigant to Pay Referee Fees/Costs in Absence of Noticed Motion

Cases: Discovery

Fourth District, Division Three Issues Mandate to Reverse Contrary Ex Parte Order.             The Fourth District, Division Three, in Clayton v. Superior Court, Case No. G040482 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 27, 2008) (unpublished “by the court” decision), issued a writ of mandate overturning an ex parte order appointing a discovery referee

Trustees Fees Are Not Awardable Under the Elder Abuse Act’s Fee-Shifting Provision and $1 Million Attorney’s Fees Award Reversed as Excessive

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division Three Rules on Scope and Reasonableness of Certain Fees Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5.             Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, one segment of California’s Elder Abuse Act, is a mandatory fee-shifting provision.  In relevant part, section 15657.5 provides:  “(a) Where it is proven by a preponderance

Shasta Superior Court Judge Awards Newspaper $36,288 in Attorney’s Fees Under California Public Records Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Government Code Section 6259(d) Provides for Mandatory Fee Award to Prevailing Plaintiff.             California has a Public Records Act (CPRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act.  Persons can request release of certain public records, subject to exemptions, and can sue to compel release of documents from

Fee Motion Substantiation–Do You Need to Attach Detailed Fee Billings That Reveal Attorney Client Information?

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation

Fourth District, Division One Answers “No” and Provide Adequate Substantiation Tips in Pair of Unpublished Decisions.             Numerous times, we have been asked and have visited the question of whether detailed fee billing statements, which may divulge attorney-client privileged information, need to be attached as exhibits to a fee motion.  The next

Rejecting Judicial Estoppel Argument, Former Attorneys Win Over $101,000 Fee/Costs Award from in Pro Per Plaintiff Client

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Prevailing Party

Second District, Division Three Panel Rejects Judicial Estoppel, Self-Representation, and Third-Party Beneficiary Arguments Raised By Losing Client.             An attorney’s fees clause in a retainer agreement is a great equalizer in any litigation over the proper fee charged for services by former counsel.  An in pro per Client sued his Former Attorneys,

Routine Costs Can Include Court-Appointed Assistants Necessary to the Litigation and Attorney’s Fees Clauses in Several Agreements Will be Interpreted in an Integrated Fashion

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Standard of Review

Fourth District, Division One So Holds In Partnership Dissolution Case.             In our June 27, 2008 post, we examined Roberts v. Ross, a recent Fourth District, Division One unpublished case construing trial court discretion to award certain non-specified, non-prohibited costs as routine costs “necessary for the litigation” under a catchall provision, Code

Section 998 Unapportioned Offer Made to Multiple Plaintiffs is Uncertain in Wrongful Death Case

Cases: Section 998

Second District, Division Six Reverses Expert Witness Cost Award Where No Individual Apportionment Made In Wrongful Death Case.             In an earlier post on Alkire v. Vaughn, we discussed how a “single/indivisible damage injury” case could sustain a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to multiple plaintiffs without an apportionment.  Conversely,

Scroll to Top