Author name: Marc Alexander

Nonsignatories, Section 1717: Lenders, As Third-Party Beneficiaries, Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under Broad Fee Clause Encompassing Tort Claims

Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

$150,000 Was The Fee Award Affirmed In Lenders’ Favor As Prevailing Cross-Defendants.             Hom v. Petrou, Case No. A161770 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 3, 2021) (published) involved a $150,000 contractual attorney’s fees award in favor of lenders obtaining a dismissal of a cross-complaint alleging primarily tort claims.  The 1/4 DCA affirmed, holding that there […]

Construction, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity, Insurance: Subcontractors Not Liable For Gen. Developer Defense Fees Not Relating To Their Work, And Equitable Subrogation Action Fees For Developer Not Recoverable Under Ambiguous Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Insurance

At The End, Joint/Several Liability Theory On The First Issue Was Rejected, And Ambiguity Construed Against Developer Drafter On The Second Issue.             This next post might interest construction and insurance practitioners, although it involves the interesting intersection of contractual and insurance equitable subrogation issues—with complexities teeming!             In Berg v. Pulte Home Corp., Case

Appealability, Class Action, Common Fund: Ninth Circuit, In A Case Which Was Not A Classic Common Fund Case When Google Agreed To Pay Class Action Counsel Outside Of Fund, Determines Award Of $725,580.80 To Class Counsel Was Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Common Fund

No Final Judgment/Settlement Occurred, With Google Agreeing To Pay Outside Of The Common Fund, And With The Collateral Order Doctrine Not Inapplicable Under The Circumstances.             The Ninth Circuit, in AdTrader, Inc. v. Google, LLC, Case No. 20-15542 (9th Cir. July 30, 2021) (published), faced an interesting fact pattern as evidenced by this passage near

Appealability, Appeal Sanctions, Discovery, Sanctions: $4,900 In Monetary Discovery Sanctions Affirmed

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

However, Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Denied For Failure To Show The Appeal Was Brought For An Improper Motive.             In Lazo v. Keller, Case No. G058765 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 29, 2021) (unpublished), two plaintiffs separately were ordered by the lower court to pay $4,900 in monetary discovery sanctions to defendant.  Plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed

Probate, SLAPP: Trial Court SLAPPING Trustee/Joining Beneficiary’s Disinheritance (No Contest Clause) Petition Properly Granted $13,889 In SLAPP Fees Against Trustee/Joining Beneficiary In Their Individual Capacities

Cases: Probate, Cases: SLAPP

CCP § 1026 Was The Governing Costs Allocation Statute Regarding SLAPP Fee Award.             Although this case is must reading for probate practitioners on the scope of actions for which “no contest” clauses encompass, Cadena v. Vose, Case No. F080428 (5th Dist. July 28, 2021) (unpublished) shows how fees awardable under the SLAPP statute can

Civil Rights, Costs: California Supreme Court Holds That Government Code Section 12965(b) Applies To Costs On Appeal And Vacates Award Of Costs On Appeal To Prevailing FEHA Defendant

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

The Court Of Appeal Made No Findings As To Whether FEHA Plaintiff’s Claims Were Objectively Groundless.             In our Year In Review post of the top 30 decisions in 2020, we included as No. 22 the case of Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, 47 Cal.App.5th 532 which had been granted review by the California

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Trial Court’s Call That HOA Was Prevailing Party, Although Homeowners Had Partial Success, Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

$157,146.44 Was Fee Assessment Against Homeowners Arising Out Of Landscape Dispute.             In a somewhat complimentary unpublished decision to Harris v. Rojas (a Second District decision we posted on recently), the Third District in Winchester Community Assn. v. Perrotta, Case No. C085295 (3d Dist. July 20, 2021) (unpublished) had to review a discretionary “prevailing party”

Prevailing Party: Party Winning Only $6,450 Of $200,00 Sought In Damages Did Not Prevail For Civ. Code § 1717 Purposes And, When Other Lawsuit Was Considered, The Other Side Won The Overall War So As To Seal The “Non-Prevailing Party” Determination

Cases: Prevailing Party

Case Has Interesting Observations On The Necessity To File A Related Case Notice, Present An Adequate Appellate Record, And Show Common Sense As Far As Claiming To Be A Prevailing Party.             Justice Wiley has authored, on behalf of the 2/8 DCA, a colorful decision on who is a “prevailing party” for Civil Code section

Requests For Admission: Trial Court’s Denial Of Prevailing Plaintiff’s Request For Costs Of Proof Fees Affirmed.

Cases: Requests for Admission

The Record Showed The Existence Of At Least One Of The Four Exceptions To The Otherwise Mandatory Fee Award Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420.             In Figg v. Mann, Case No. D078585 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 19, 2021) (unpublished), prevailing personal injury plaintiff appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to recover

Scroll to Top