Author name: Marc Alexander

Indemnity: Apple’s Request For Substantial Attorney’s Fees On Contractual Counterclaims In Epic Lawsuit Denied Because Indemnification Clause Not Broad Enough To Encompass Non-Third Party Claims

Cases: Indemnity

Drafting Issues Abound Here—Make It Explicit!             We thank our AlvaradoSmith colleague Monisha Coelho for bringing the recent ruling in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021) (Doc. 812) to our attention.  It highlights how indemnification clauses must be drafted with extremely clear language to make true attorney’s […]

Appealability, Trade Secrets: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees Under Trade Secret Statute, Before Resolution Of Entire Case, Was Not Appealable For Now

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Trade Secrets

Order Dismissing Appeal Was Recently Published.             In Dr. V Productions, Inc. v. Rey, Case No. B312605 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 10, 2021) (published), the appellate court confronted whether the denial of a $273,484.56 attorney’s fees request under the trade secret fee-shifting statute (Civil Code section 3426.4) was appealable where the trade secret claim

Interpleader: Interpleading Cross-Complainant, Likely Not A Neutral Stakeholder Given Competing Claims, Properly Denied $450,000 In Attorney’s Fees Where Cross-Complainant Had Use Of $5.5 Million In Fund For Four Years

Cases: Interpleader

Interpleading Party Held And Managed The Bond Portfolio Under An Unusual Loan Agreement.             CCP § 386.6(a) allows a court discretion to award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to an interpleading party obtaining a discharge.  Because this is an equity-driven decision-making process (Hood v. Gonzales, 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 71 (2019)), the abuse of discretion standard

Interest: Trial Court Properly Rejected Interest Accruing From An Earlier 2015 Merits Judgment When Fees Were Only Awarded In Early 2019 After A Prior Appellate Reversal Of A Fee Denial

Cases: Interest

End Result Was That 3 ½ Years Of Interest Did Not Accrue, About A $100,000 Savings.             In AAWestwood, LLC v. Liberal Arts 677 Benevolent Foundation, Inc., Case No. B302363 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 8, 2021) (unpublished), the interest accrual for a subsequent fees order was the question facing the appellate court.             The

Civil Rights, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: $1,113,750 In FEHA Attorney’s Fees In Racial Discrimination/Retaliation Case Garnering $450,001 Compensatory Award To Successful Plaintiff Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Hourly Rate, Lodestar, And Multiplier Conclusions Were Not Beyond Reason.             Plaintiff in Sterling v. County of Sacramento, Case No. C089616 (3d Dist. Sept. 7, 2021) (unpublished) won $450,001 in compensatory damages under FEHA racial discrimination/retaliation claims.  Plaintiff then moved for over $1.515 million in fees (lodestar plus a positive 2 multiplier enhancement).  The lower

Arbitration: Superior Court Judge Properly Vacated An Arbitrator’s Correction Of A Fee/Costs Award From The Amount Contained In The Original Final Award

Cases: Arbitration

The Miscalculation Was Not Evident From The Face Of The Prior Award.             Crooymans v. Givner, Case No. B305916 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 7, 2021) (unpublished) demonstrates how narrow the power of an arbitrator is to correct an arbitration award under CCP § 1286.6(a).  There, children, the executors/trustees of their late father’s estate/trust, filed

Deadlines: Service Of Notice Of Ruling On Post-Trial Motions Did Not Trigger Shorter Post-Trial Motion Appeal Period For Purposes Of Shortening The 180-Day Longest Period To File An Attorney’s Fees Motion

Cases: Deadlines

Numerous CRC Provisions And Cases Established The Proper Conclusion.             We thank the 2/2 DCA panel in Gallop v. Duval, Case No. B308531 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 2, 2021) (unpublished) for clarifying the deadlines which apply to timely filing of an attorney’s fees motion when posttrial motions have been denied.  Prevailing party filed an

Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation: Wife Properly Allowed Section 217 Sanctions Against Husband For Divorce Decree Enforcement Purposes

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

However, Lower Court Properly Denied Her Fees On Husband’s Prior Efforts To Set Aside The Martial Settlement Agreement.             In Marriage of Mirza, Case Nos. G057613 et seq. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 1, 2021) (unpublished), husband and wife entered into a marital settlement agreement and divorce decree based upon the agreement.  Husband then attempted

Employment, Section 998: Section 998 Offer Is Invalid If Employer Did Not Attempt To Pay Undisputed Wage Amounts Before Sending Section 998 Offer

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Timing Is Everything—Pay Undisputed Amount Before The 998 Offer Or Pay Later/Issue A New 998 Offer.             Wasito v. Kazali, Case No. B308826 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 31, 2021) (published) is must reading for employers wishing to resolve unpaid wage claims through a CCP § 998 offer where undisputed wages are due.             In

Common Fund, Costs, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 4/3 DCA Affirms Large Part Of Trial Judge’s Fee And Costs Rulings In Financial Elder Abuse/Derivative Litigation

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Hornet Nest Of Fees And Costs Issues Resolved By Appellate Court.             We knew right away that Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth penned Horowitz v. Brown, Case No. G057412 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 30, 2021) (unpublished) based on his distinctive writing style.  The appellate court faced a virtual hornet nest of fees and costs issues,

Scroll to Top