Author name: Marc Alexander

Costs: Plaintiff Unsuccessfully Appeals Postjudgment Costs Order Awarding $3,451.11 To Prevailing Defendants Arguing That His Deposition Testimony Should Have Been Precluded And Therefore Was Not A Recoverable Cost

Cases: Costs

Plaintiff’s Challenge To The Costs Order Was Precluded As It Ultimately Attacked A Prejudgment Order That Plaintiff Did Not Appeal And Did Not Challenge In Appeal Of The Judgment And Underlying Summary Judgment Ruling.             In Lopez v. Irvine Company LLC, Case No. G059354 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 1, 2022) (unpublished), defendants defeated plaintiff’s […]

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $143,624.59 Costs Award To Lemon Law Defendant, Based On A Successful CCP § 998 Offer, Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Bad Faith And Lack Of Specificity Arguments Rejected.             California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, known as the Lemon Law, has a pro-plaintiff attorney’s fees provision.  However, Code of Civil Procedure section 998 can tilt the risk against a defendant by cutting off post-offer fees and costs if the 998 offer is properly crafted.  Plus, the

POOF!, Special Fee Shifting Statute: CCP § 1038 Fees/Costs Assessed Against Plaintiff And In Favor Of City In Dangerous Property Case Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s Claim Was Colorable Such That “Reasonable Cause” Element Was Missing So As To Not Justify The Award.             Cities gaining pre-trial victories in certain cases frequently move to recover some attorney’s fees and costs against a losing defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038.  However, the governmental entity must prove that the plaintiff’s

Private Attorney General: Lower Court Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fee Request By Plaintiff Which Dismissed Its Complaint Without Showing That Nonsettling Defendants Changed Their Behavior As A Result Of The Lawsuit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Success/Causation Elements Of Section 1021.5 Were Not Demonstrated.             In Companion Animal Protection Society v. Puppies4Less, Case No. E076858 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 29, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff sued certain defendants for selling animals to pet stores which were not obtained from nonprofit animal shelters or rescue groups.  Some defendants settled, others did not, and

Sanctions: $11,300 In CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Affirmed Against Client’s Attorney Based On Relitigating Grounds Lost Before

Cases: Sanctions

However, Because No Improper Purpose Shown By Client Independent Of Following Counsel’s Advice, Sanctions Against Client Reversed.             Showers v. Matthews, Case No. A163900 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 29, 2022) (unpublished) is a reminder that CCP § 128.7 sanctions cannot be sustained under subdivision (b)(1) if the underlying conduct by a client was reliance

Reviews: Articles On Anti-SLAPP Fee Awards And On Best Practices

Cases: SLAPP, Reviews

California Litigation Publishes Two Helpful Attorney Fees Articles In Latest Issue.         California Litigation, the journal of the Litigation Section of the California Lawyers Association, has published two articles relating to attorney fees in the latest issue, Vol. 35, No. 1 (2022). Co-contributor to this blog Marc is one of the editors of California Litigation.

Civil Rights, Costs: Costs Relating To Non-FEHA Claims Affirmed, But Remand To Determine If Some Costs Were Justified Because FEHA Claim Was Frivolous

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

Lack Of Trial Court Findings Required A Limited Remand On Possible FEHA Costs.             In a FEHA/non-FEHA mixed case, routine costs that true non-FEHA claim costs are recoverable but that overlapping FEHA/non-FEHA claim costs which cannot be apportioned can only be recovered if the FEHA claim was frivolous.  (Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc. (2015) 237

Sanctions: Sixth District Affirms Imposition Of Section 128.7 Sanctions Against Plaintiff Who Filed Second Amended Complaint With Factually And Legally Frivolous Allegations

Cases: Sanctions

Plaintiff’s Filing Of A Third Amended Complaint Did Not Render Defendant’s Sanctions Motion Moot Because Third Amended Complaint Was Filed After Defendant Filed Sanctions Motion, Not Beforehand During The 21-Day Safe Harbor Period             Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, an attorney or self-represented party makes an implied “certification” as to the legal and

Private Attorney General: Property Owner’s Proposition 218 Win Over Water Rates Justified $89,500 Attorney’s Fees Award Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Fee Award Was Less Than Requested $188,806.50.             Miner’s Camp, LLC v. Foresthill Public Utility District, Case No. C088828 (3d Dist. June 23, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how private attorney general awards will be allowed even where the litigant has some self-interest in the fight, as long as an award is not disproportionate and benefits others.

Scroll to Top