Author name: Marc Alexander

Homeowner Associations: Complaint Allegations And Discovery Responses Revealed That Losing Plaintiffs’ Claims Were Based Partially On CC&Rs

Cases: Homeowner Associations

This Meant That Fees Were Recoverable By The HOA Under The Davis-Stirling Act Fee Shifting Provision.                In Smith v. Bridle Path Homeowners Association, Inc., Case No. B331987 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 21, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiffs owning homes in a Simi Valley planned equestrian community sued an HOA for deciding to not maintain certain […]

Arbitration, Employment: 30-Day Arbitration Payment Deadline Under CCP § 1281.98 Runs From Invoice Issuance Date By ADR Provider

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment

. . . And It Is Extended By CCP § 12 Extensions If Deadline Falls on a Holiday or Weekend.                We have seen an uptick on decisions considering CCP § 1281.98, the section requiring employers to timely pay arbitration expenses invoiced by an ADR provider within 30 days under penalty of returning the case

Default Judgments: $9,000 Attorney’s Fees Component Of Default Judgment Reduced To Zero On Appeal

Cases: Default Judgments

Lease Contractual Clause Not Implicated In The Default Judgment.                In Hernandez v. Nunez, Case No. E083404 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 19, 2025) (unpublished), defendants suffered an adverse default judgment inclusive of attorney’s fees of $9,000.  Defendants did appeal, which resulted in the attorney’s fees amount being reduced to zero.  A lease contractual fees

Arbitration, Employment: Where Employer Did Not Timely Pay Arbitration Expenses Within 30 Days And Employee Opted To Stay In Arbitration, Employee Can Get Recovery Of All Arbitration Expenses, Including Fees Through The End Of The Arbitration

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment

Although Unpublished, This Is An Important Reminder To Employers On Timely Paying Arbitration Fees, Under Penalties Even If Employee Opts For Arbitration.                Although unpublished, Lehman v. MediaLab.AI, Inc., Case No. B336814 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 19, 2025) (unpublished), is an opinion that employers need to pay attention to in case they are delinquent

Costs, Employment: On Remand From California Supreme Court, Third District Reverses Appellate Costs Award To Prevailing Defendant In A FEHA Action

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Pollock Analysis Dictated The Overturn.                In York v. City of Sacramento, Case No. C097761 (3d Dist. May 14, 2025) (unpublished), the Third District in an earlier opinion affirmed a summary adjudication order against plaintiff in a FEHA case and awarded appellate costs to the prevailing employer.  The California Supreme Court granted review and remanded

Fee Clause Interpretation: Losing Party To An Oral Agreement To Foreclose On A Property Was Not Liable For Fees Under A Promissory Note

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Losing Party Was Not A Signatory To The Note, And The Foreclosure Oral Agreement Was Separate From The Note.                Kim v. Kim, Case No. B336809 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 14, 2025) (unpublished) involved a fight between plaintiffs and defendants over an oral agreement to foreclose property, with plaintiffs paying $25,000 under that agreement

Costs, Employment: Prevailing Defendant Employer Improperly Awarded Costs In PAGA Action Against LWDA Where It Did Not Participate In The Underlying Litigation

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

$124,585.24 Costs Award Vacated As A Matter Of Law On Appeal.                In Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Case No. A169640 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 14, 2025) (published), defendant employer prevailed in a PAGA action brought by plaintiff employee, with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) not participating in the litigation

POOF!: Prevailing Plaintiff’s Appeal Of A Fee Denial Stayed Its Second Successful Effort To Have The Court Reconsider And Award Fees Of $4.479 Million, Which Meant The Second Fee Award Was Void

Cases: POOF!

CCP § 916 Appellate Stay Was The Key, Meaning the Large, Subsequent Fee Award Went POOF!                Although this may sound technical, the result in CDC San Francisco, LLC v. Critchfield Mechanical, Inc., Case No. A169224 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2025) (unpublished) shows how taking an appeal will stay subsequent efforts to obtain

Costs: Prevailing Defendant Was Entitled To Most Routine Costs . . .

Cases: Costs

However, Because Statute Allowing CourtCall Costs As Being Mandatory Was Repealed, Matter Had To Be Remanded To Determine If It Was A Correct Discretionary Costs Matter Under The General Routine Costs Statute.                Prevailing defendant, winning on a summary judgment motion, was granted certain costs for deposition transcripts and record subpoenas given that co-counsel needed

Scroll to Top