Cases: Allocation

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fee Request: Defense Request For FEHA “Frivolousness” Fee Recovery Denied Because Of Block Billing

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Block Billing Vitiated Certainty of Defense Request for Allocated Fee Recovery.      We have many, many times before warned about the dangers of block billing. Under governing California law, block billing can result in draconian results when a trial court considers a fee request–it can disregard the billing in entirety or reduce the request […]

Allocation/Appellate Sanctions/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fourth District, Division 3 Sanctions Plaintiffs’ Attorneys For CRC Appeals Violations And Losing Derivative Plaintiffs Are Hit With Substantial Fee Awards Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Case #1: Appellate Sanctions Are Imposed.      In Alexandros v. Cole, Case No. G043715 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 30, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a minority shareholder breach-of-fiduciary duty suit against various defendants and then lost their appeal. However, the appellate court also awarded $10,000 (out of a requested $30,000) in sanctions to defendants

Allocation/Civil Rights: Successor For Elderly Patient Entitled to Mandatory Fee Award In Suit Brought Under California’s Patient Bill Of Rights

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights

  $305,000 Fee Award Sustained For Violation Even Though No Damages Awarded.      Anderson v. AG Seal Beach, Case No. B228683 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 14, 2011) (unpublished) is a case where a successor won a $171,000 jury verdict for her mother’s alleged skilled nursing home injuries, even though the jury did not enter

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Section 1717/Section 998/Allocation: Fee Awards Do Not Have To Be Proportional To Damages Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  2d Dist., Division 6 So Holds In Two Unpublished Opinions, Besides Facing Other Issues. Weiss v. Cope, Case No. B24970 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished)      In this one, plaintiff rejected defendant’s 998 offer. However, plaintiff’s total judgment–the sum of the jury award and $100,000 in attorney’s fees awarded by the

Employment/Special Fee Shifting Statute (Pen. Code, § 502)/Reasonableness Of Fees/Allocation/Substantiation Of Fees: $980,373.50 Fee Award To Ex-Employee Not Paid All His Promised Commissions And Subject To Personal Computer Tampering Affirmed On App

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Appellate Court Found Lower Court Correct to View L.A. Attorneys As Within San Bernardino Venue and Necessary Given Earlier Misfortunes with Local Attorneys.      Trealoff v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. E048818 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2011) (unpublished) was a case where an ex-employee won sizable jury verdicts, including punitive damages, for

Sanctions: Attorney’s Fees Requested Under CCP § 128.7 Denied Where Motion Not Clearly Targeted And Appeal Was Not Frivolous In Nature

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Sanctions

  Remittitur Cost Apportionment Issue Also Considered.      The First District, Division 4, in a case it had seen before a couple of times (with the case eventually going to the state supreme court), had decided that an in pro per attorney could not collect an award of attorney’s fees in connection with CCP §

Allocation/Multiplier: Winning Overtime/Meal Break Plaintiff Reaps $210,625.75 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Multipliers

  1.5 Multiplier Sustained by Appellate Court, Rejecting Application of Federal Perdue Analysis.      Well, well. This next unpublished decision is interesting on a couple of fronts. First, it illustrates that courts will not hesitate to vindicate wage/hour violations through an award of fees enhanced by a multiplier. Second, it also demonstrates that state courts

Specific Fee Shifting Statute/Allocation: Plaintiff Winning A Brown Act and Public Records Dispute Received $20,000 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Request For $571,495.60 in Fees Rebuffed; Fifth District Gives Great Review of Fee Standards For Both Trial and Appellate Levels.      This next case is an interesting sequel to an on-going dispute by which a plaintiff prevailed against the Orosi Public Utility District for Brown Act and California Public Records Act violations, with the first

Scroll to Top