Author name: Marc Alexander

HOMEOWNER WINS ANTI-SLAPP ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD BECAUSE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION BROUGHT FRIVOLOUS MOTION AGAINST HER CLAIMS

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District Affirms Fee Award and Clarifies That Frivolousness Findings Do Not Have to be Prolix in Nature.        If a plaintiff defeats an anti-SLAPP motion determined to be frivolous, the plaintiff must be awarded attorneys under the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c).) Frivolousness requires a finding that the anti-SLAPP […]

In PRO PER APPELLANT LOSES CHALLENGES TO APPELLATE ATTORNEY FEE AWARD FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL OF AN ANTI-SLAPP ORDER

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 3 Sanctions Losing In Pro Per Plaintiff By Affirming $40,000 Attorney’s Fees Award.             Previously, an in pro per litigant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a fraudulent transfer complaint by an opponent.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §425.16 [anti-SLAPP statute].)  In pro per lost the motion, and the trial

UNSUPPORTED CHALLENGE OF “EXCESSIVENESS” OR “DUPLICATIVE WORK” BY APPELLANT CHALLENGING FEE AWARDS REJECTED BY COURT OF APPEAL

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Experts, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District Affirms Award of Anti-SLAPP Fees to Defendant Where Fee Attacks Were Not Supported by Competent Evidence.                          When opposing a fee motion, a litigant should support challenges with competent evidence.  Such evidence can take the form of an expert witness or a particularized challenge to

THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL WARNS PARTIES TO APPELLATE MEDIATIONS—NOTIFY INSURERS TO ATTEND AND ATTEND YOURSELF OR RISK PAYING THE ATTENDING PARTY’S WASTED ATTORNEY’S FEES

Cases: Mediation, Cases: Sanctions

Court of Appeal Construes Its Power to Sanction and Award Fees For Noncompliance with Local Mediation Program Dictates.             Many appellate courts, including the Third District Court of Appeal (Sacramento), have appellate mediation programs by which parties to an appeal can try to informally resolve the case either before or after briefing

FIRST DISTRICT HOLDS IT IMPROPER TO APPLY “A MECHANICAL FORMULA” TO REDUCE AN AWARD OF ANTI-SLAPP ATTORNEY’S FEES TO A SUCCESSFUL PARTY

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appellate Court Found That Trial Judge Used Incorrect Legal Standard When Reducing a Fee Award by Two-Thirds.             A defendant who brings a successful anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to a mandatory award of attorney’s fees and costs.  (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 425.16(c); Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131 (2001).)  Generally, appellate

UNLICENSED OR IMPROPERLY LICENSED CONTRACTORS BEWARE—REVERSAL OF UNDERLYING JUDGMENT ALSO WILL MEAN LOSS OF A FEE AWARD

Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Fourth District Rejects Substantial Compliance Doctrine and Strips Judgment/Fee Award From Subcontractor on Appeal.             Business and Professions Code section 7031 bars unlicensed contractors from recovering compensation for work performed under a construction contract.  In recent years, the substantial compliance doctrine—which previously gave breaks to certain unlicensed situations where a managing agent

FEHA WINNING MUNICIPAL ENTITY DENIED AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES EVEN THOUGH FEHA CLAIMANT’S JURY AWARD WAS REVERSED EARLIER ON APPEAL

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Second District Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Trial Judge’s Determination That FEHA Claim Was Not Frivolous Despite a Prior Reversal in a Previous Appeal.             California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides “the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert

TAILS ARE WAGGING

Uncategorized

     Marc Alexander and Mike Hensley warmly thank The UCL Practitioner and its author Kimberly A. Kralowec for welcoming California Attorney’s Fees to the blogosphere.  Kimberly’s welcome is especially meaningful to us, because Kimberly has been generous with her time and encouragement.  Also, The UCL Practitioner is an outstanding example of what a blog

APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS TRIAL JUDGE DISCRETION IN FINDING THERE WAS NO PREVAILING PARTY FOR PURPOSES OF AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES TO EITHER SIDE OF A RETAINER DISPUTE

Cases: Prevailing Party

Second District Finds “No Prevailing Party” Where Both Client and Attorneys Do Not Achieve What Either Wanted.             “If neither party achieves a complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither

APPELLATE COURT ASSESSES SANCTIONS, REMANDS FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES ON APPEAL, AND ORDERS LOSING APPELLATE ATTORNEYS TO PAY MONEY TO COURT CLERK FOR PROCESSING OF FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

First District Finds Appeal Frivolous and Assesses Sanctions Against Losing Party and Losing Attorneys As Well as Remands for Award of Appellate Attorney Fees to Winning Party.             Stressing what we have said before in prior posts (see May 22 and 28, 2008 posts), appellate law is no area for neophytes.  It

Scroll to Top