Author name: Marc Alexander

Private Attorney General: Third District Affirms Trial Court’s Denial Of Section 1021.5 Attorney Fees Of Almost $130,000 To Plaintiff Who Dismissed Action After Entering Into Stipulation With Defendant

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Failed To Meet Its Burden Of Proving Prevailing Party Status, Especially In Light Of Defendant’s Evidence That The Relief Plaintiff Sought Was Already Being Implemented Before Plaintiff Filed Its Action.             Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, plaintiff dismissed its action, regarding an unlawful stream obstruction that impaired fish passage, against defendant two […]

Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Denial Of Attorney Fees Sought Under The Catalyst Theory By Plaintiffs Who Ultimately Obtained The Relief They Sought Reversed And Remanded For Rehearing

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Trial Court Failed To Consider Whether Plaintiffs' Lawsuits Were The Catalyst For The Relief Obtained.             In Dept. of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases, Case NO. C091771 (3d Dist., May 11, 2022) (unpublished), lawsuits filed against Dept. of Water Resources regarding a project meant to improve the State’s water supply infrastructure were coordinated for trial,

Prevailing Party: Sixth District Affirms $320,100 In Attorneys’ Fee Awarded Pursuant To Contractual Attorney Fee Provisions To Successors In Interest Defendants Prevailing Against Action Sounding In Tort And Contract

Cases: Prevailing Party

As They Were Entitled, Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1021, Original Parties To The Contract Entered Into A Fee Arrangement Obligating Payment Of Fees To The Prevailing Party Whether The Underlying Litigation Sounded In Tort Or Contract.             In Cook v. Trebino, Case Nos. H047830/H048498 (6th Dist., May 10, 2022) (unpublished), two sisters each

Prevailing Party, Reasonableness of Fees, Section 1717: Section 1717 Fees Award Of About $40,000 Affirmed For Plaintiff Who Had Fraud Claim Dismissed By Trial Court And Received Only A Portion Of Requested Damages After Bench Trial

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

A One-Sided Fees Provision Entitled Plaintiff To Reciprocal Prevailing Party Fees Under Section 1717, And A Trial Court’s Determination As To Reasonableness Of Fees Will Not Be Disturbed Absent A Showing That The Trial Court Is Clearly Wrong.             In Hernandez v. Thottam, Case No. B306547 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 10, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff

Family Law: Sixth District Finds No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Imposition Of $10,000 In Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Against Wife For Failure To Comply With Court Orders

Cases: Family Law

The Record “Unerringly” Demonstrated That Wife’s Refusal To Obey Court Orders Over A More Than Seven-Year Period Was Unreasonable And Unnecessarily Prolonged And Increased The Cost Of The Litigation.             In Marriage of Butler, Case No. H049004 (6th Dist., May 9, 2022) (unpublished), husband and wife entered into a stipulation which was entered as a

Deadlines, SLAPP: Successful SLAPPing Defendants’ Award Of $33,120 In Attorney Fees And $91.85 In Costs Reversed On Appeal Due To Trial Court’s Flawed Legal Analysis In Determining Deadline For Fees/Costs Motion

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: SLAPP

Holidays Did Not Stop The Clock On Defendants’ Deadline And Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5 Does Not Govern When The Clock Begins Under Rule 8.104.             In Tye v. Papp, Case No. E076523 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2022) (unpublished), defendants were awarded $33,120 in attorney fees and $91.85 in costs under Code Civ.

Section 1717: Trial Court’s Order Awarding Prevailing Plaintiff $159,792.98 In Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Affirmed On Appeal Even Though Note Providing Basis For Fees Award Was Not Formally Admitted Into Evidence

Cases: Section 1717

The Trial Court Had Effectively Admitted The Note Into Evidence As The Note Had Been Marked As Evidence, The Parties Had Elicited Testimony About It At Trial, And Neither Party Disputed Its Authenticity Or Objected To Its Admissibility.             In Amirnezhad v. Ghayam, Case No. B306361 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 4, 2022) (unpublished), defendant

Family Law: 4/3 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Denial Of Husband’s Needs-Based Section 2030 Fees For $50,000 In Fees Incurred And $30,000 For Appellate Fees From Third-Parties Husband Claimed Owed A Community Asset Of $4 Million

Cases: Family Law

Husband Incurred Attorney Fees Over And Above The Trial Court’s Previous Awards To Him Totaling $150,000 By Overlitigating The Case, And Failed To Provide The Trial Court With Reasonable Grounds For Appeal.             Husband litigated a claim that his siblings and family-owned business entities owed him $4 million through the proceeding for dissolution of his

Family Law: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Denial Of Fees And Costs For Appeal Of Companion Case To Mother In Parentage Action Who Earned Significantly Less Than Father, But Remand Was In Order For Denial Of Needs-Based Fees For DVPA Action

Cases: Family Law

Family Code Section 7605 Allows For Needs-Based Fee And Costs Awards In Parentage Proceedings, But Can Apply To Separate Domestic Violence Prevention Act Proceedings Where They Involve The Same Or Similar Subject Matter.             The mother of a 12-year-old boy, who has been involved in a contested parentage action with the boy’s father for roughly

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Losing A Contested Civil Harassment Restraining Order Proceeding Properly Saddled With $37,139.01 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ability To Pay Was Acknowledged And Was A Minor Consideration.             Litigants in civil harassment restraining order proceedings need to be aware that there is a discretionary prevailing party fee-shifting statute under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s).   In Nicolino v. Rey, Case No. B307752 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 27, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff lost

Scroll to Top