Author name: Marc Alexander

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $71,075.075 Grant Of Attorney’s Fees To California Public Records Act Petitioner Reversed Because Minimal/Insignificant Results In Document Disclosure May Allow For Denial Of Fees Altogether

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Minimal/Insignificant Standard Is Applicable to CPRA Fees, Even Though the Statute Has Mandatory Prevailing Party Fee Language.             Riskin v. Downtown L.A. Property Owners Assn., Case No. B309814 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 17, 2022) (published) dealt with a situation where a petitioner under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) obtained a $71,075.75 attorney’s fees […]

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Despite Some Partial Appellate Issue Reversals, Plaintiff Water Authority Prevailed Under A Contractual Fees Clause So As To Be Entitled To Fees And Costs For Achieving Litigation Success On Important Water Rate Issues

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing On “Water Rates Not Set Pursuant To Law” Issue Drove The Conclusion.             Without going into a detailed discussion of the prolonged dispute between the parties, San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California, Case No. A162168 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 17, 2022) (unpublished) shows that a “prevailing party”

Consumer Statutes: $406,154.25 Fee Award Under The Song-Beverly Act And The CLRA Affirmed Despite Reversal of CLRA Restitutionary Award

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Despite Finding Defendant Made A Proper Offer Of Correction, CLRA Injunctive Relief and Fee Entitlement Under The Lemon Law Justified Entry Of The Trial Judge’s Fee Award.             In DeNike v. Mathew Enterprise, Inc., Case No. H046718 (6th Dist. Mar. 16, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff suing for vehicle problems under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Lemon

Private Attorney General: 4/2 DCA Reverses Private Attorney General Fee Denial In Housing Plan Dispute With City Of Desert Hot Springs, Remanding For Determination Of Amount To Be Awarded

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Enforcement Necessity Prong Does Not Require Causation, With The Litigation Vindicating Important Affordable Housing Rights For A Large Class Of People.             Plaintiffs sued the City of Desert Hot Springs and related parties to force a long overdue obligation to revise the housing element of the city’s general plan.  The city had missed numerous

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Civil Harassment Fee Award Reversed Where No Noticed Motion Was Filed To Claim Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Issuance Of Fee Order At The Actual Harassment Hearing Was Improper.             Due process does matter, and reasonableness of fees are usually determined through a noticed motion, as Bullock v. Anderson, Case No. B309230 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished) makes clear.  What happened here is that a lower court dismissed a civil

Costs: 4/1 DCA, In A Majority Decision, Affirms That Deposition Costs Taken In Another Related Case, Not The Case Where Costs Are Claimed, Cannot Be Claimed As Costs

Cases: Costs

Dissent Found That Stipulation By The Parties To Use In Another Case Where Both Cases Were Pending Should Have Allowed Costs Recovery In The Case Where Costs Were Claimed.             In Anderson v. Way West, Inc., Case No. D077648 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 14, 2022) (unpublished), majority and dissenting opinions came to different conclusions

Consumer Statutes, Reasonableness Of Fees: 4/2 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Almost $400,000 Haircut To Prevailing Song-Beverly Plaintiffs’ Fee Request

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

The Panel Found No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Finding That The Hourly Rate And Number Of Hours Requested Were Excessive For A Case That Was Not Complex And Involved Little, If Any, Law And Motion Work.             In Mallonee v. Toyota Motor Sales, Case No. E075088 (4th Dist., Div. 2 March 10, 2022)

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Attorney Fees Award Of $10,295 To Prevailing Defendant In Civil Harassment Action Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed The Civil Harassment Action, And Failed To Show That The Trial Court Acted Arbitrarily Or Unreasonably Under Highly Deferential Discretion Standard.             Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s) allows a trial court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil harassment proceeding.  In Firsov v. Zhukovsky, Case No.

Family Law: Trial Court’s Denial Of Additional Attorney Fees Award To Husband Affirmed Despite Failure To Make Explicit Findings Under Section 2030

Cases: Family Law

Failure To Make Required Findings Under Family Code Section 2030 Requires Reversal Only Where A Reasonable Probability Exists That A More Favorable Result To The Appealing Party Would Have Been Reached If Explicit Findings Were Made             In Marriage of Callas, Case No. C093353 (3rd Dist., March 8, 2022) (unpublished), husband who had been

Scroll to Top