Author name: Marc Alexander

Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Where Matter Was Not Complex, Administrative Time Billed, and Severely Redacted Time Submissions Provided, Trial Court Was Within Its Discretion To Award $15,000 In Fees Rather Than The Requested $83,631.95

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Fee Amount Is Usually A Discretionary Call.             Bouquet Plaza SDS, LLC v. Kimmel, Case No. B306042 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 1, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how attorney’s fee motions should be attuned to lodestar factors, sometimes even offering voluntary reductions to maximize a favorable decision.  Otherwise, requesting inflated or improper fees could result in […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Third District Affirms Attorney Fee Awards Totaling $897,349.85 To Prevailing Defendants In Action Seeking To Determine And Enforce Rights Under CC&Rs

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

CC&R Attorney Fee Clause Did Not Supersede Mandatory Davis-Stirling Fee Shifting Provision, And Apportionment Was Unnecessary Where Each Of Plaintiff’s Causes Of Action Involved Defendants’ Alleged Violations Of The CC&Rs And Plaintiff’s Rights Thereunder.             In Westwood Montserrat v. AGK Sierra de Montserrat, Case Nos. C088859/C090081 (3d Dist., January 31, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff – owner

Discovery, Sanctions: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Order Issuing $6,150 In Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure To Timely Respond To Two Sets Of Discovery Requests Served By Email.

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Defendant Did Not Claim Email Service Was Improper Or That Discovery Requests Had Not Been Received, And Did Not Demonstrate That It Acted With Substantial Justification Or That The Sanctions Were Unjust Or Unreasonable.             Personal injury defendant appealed the trial court’s order issuing $6,150 in sanctions against it – $3,075 each for defendant’s failure

SLAPP: 2/1 DCA Affirms $279,197.80 In SLAPP Fees Awarded To Defendant Who Ultimately Lost Lawsuit With A Jury Verdict Against Him In The Amount Of $3.5 Million

Cases: SLAPP

Practical Benefit Test Unnecessary Where Defendant Wholly Prevailed On Anti-SLAPP Motion And Was Entitled To Mandatory Fees.             In Baral v. Schnitt, Case No. B298050 (2d Dist., Div. 1 January 28, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff – who had won a jury verdict against business partner defendant of $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in

Consumer Statutes, Costs: Recovery Of $133,239.75 In Attorney Fees, Pre-Judgment Interest And Costs Affirmed For Song-Beverly Plaintiff Who Had Paid Only $6,204.68 Under A Consumer Credit Contract.

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs

2/8 DCA Agreed With Pulliam That The Holder Rule Cap Does Not Preclude Recovery Of Attorney Fees And Further Determines That The Cap Does Not Preclude Recovery Of Costs, Nonstatutory Costs, Or Prejudgment Interest.             In Melendez v. Westlake Services, LLC, Case No. B306976 (2d Dist., Div. 8 January 28, 2022) (published), plaintiff who purchased

Arbitration: Arbitration Claimants Creating No Distinct Fund And Only Obtaining $1 Nominal Damages Properly Denied Fees And Costs By Arbitrators Under Substantial Benefit Doctrine

Cases: Arbitration

Even If The Ruling Was Erroneous, The Fee Ruling Could Not Be Reviewed On The Merits.             Arbitration can be a tough process, because the arbitrator’s rulings—even on attorney’s fees and costs—are seldom ones which can be reviewed on the merits.  Sirott v. East Bay Medical Oncology, Case Nos. A161353/A161555 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan.

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Where Defendant Obtained Injunctive Relief Against Plaintiff In Nonsolicitation Restriction Litigation, Section 1717 Fees And Costs Were Justified

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

$596,114 In Fees And $84,125 In Costs Affirmed On Appeal.             In Blue Mountain Enterprises, LLC v. Owen, Case Nos. A157054/A158783 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 28, 2022) (published), plaintiff obtained a TRO, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction in hard-fought litigation against a defendant who transferred his ownership interest in real estate/construction related business to

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: 4/1 DCA Decides That Pragmatic, Litigation Objective Test Governs Lemon Law Cases, Not The Net Monetary Award Test Under CCP § 1032

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Section 998 Offer By The Defense Was Too Uncertain—A “Moving Target.”             In Duff v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. D078100 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 27, 2022) (published), the 4/1 DCA departed company from its prior approach as far as awarding lemon law fees to a prevailing plaintiff under Civil Code

Sanctions: Imposition of Sanctions Under Former CCP § 128.5 Reversed Where Sanctions Imposed In 2006 Case Because Former Provision Applied to Pre-1995 Cases

Cases: Sanctions

Small Sanctions Award Reversed As To Plaintiffs, But Not As To Their Attorney Who Failed To Join The Appeal.             There is a lesson for litigation attorneys in this one, with respect to making sure you join an appeal by a client who is hit with statutory sanctions.             Plaintiffs and attorney were hit with

Mediation: Lis Pendens Mediation Exception Applied Such That Buyer’s Specific Performance Filing Did Not Disqualify Buyer From Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Mediation

Buyer’s Substantial Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal.             In a decision worth reading on buyer’s broker’s duties, rescission, and specific performance (with a majority and concurring/dissenting opinions), the 4/2 DCA also confronted a $776,757.88 contractual attorney’s fees award to the prevailing buyer in a real estate purchase.  Seller in Greif v. Sanin, Case Nos. E070283

Scroll to Top