Miscellaneous

Lodestar, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Deed Restriction Document Gave Rise to Contractual Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees, Miscellaneous

$144,210 Was The Fees Award, With Attorney Declaration Of Efforts Sufficient And Rejecting The Notion That City’s Lead Counsel’s Salary Guided The Lodestar Analysis. In City of Santa Monica v. Sung, Case No. B336881 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 10, 2026) (unpublished), defendant condo owner lost a declaratory relief action brought by City […]

Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $599,370 Attorney’s Fees Award Under A Settlement Agreement Confirmed Because Challenging Party Waived An Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement, Miscellaneous

Case Also Has A Good Discussion Of Trial Court Retention Of Jurisdiction To Enforce A Settlement After The 1993 Amendment To CCP § 664.6. Hutchinson v. Lewis Towing 2, Inc., Case No. F088314 (5th Dist. Jan. 27, 2026) (unpublished) has a good discussion on two issues:  (1) retention of jurisdiction against dismissed defendants under CCP

Miscellaneous Recommended Reading: Attorney Fees — A Potential Malpractice Minefield

Miscellaneous

Co-Contributor Marc Authored An Article About Attorney Fees And The Risk Of Malpractice Exposure In The October 2022 Issue Of Orange County Lawyer.         "Attorney Fees: A Potential Malpractice Minefield," authored by Marc Alexander and appearing in the October 2022 issue of Orange County Lawyer, discusses the "unhappy case" of Shahrokh Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman

Reviews: Co-Contributor Marc Publishes Article On Nuts And Bolts Of Videoconference Dispute Resolution

Miscellaneous, Off Topics, Reviews

The Article About Videoconference Dispute Resolution Appears In Current Issue Of California Litigation, Vol. 33, No. 2 (2020).         These days, Marc serves as a mediator on the panels of the USDC Central District and the Orange County Superior Court. Marc's article, "Nuts and Bolts of Videoconference Dispute Resolution in the Time of COVID-19", addresses

Miscellaneous, Default Judgments: 4/3 DCA Vacates Default Judgment And Remands To Determine If CCP § 425.11 Notice Of Damages Was Filed

Cases: Default Judgments, Miscellaneous

If Not, Default Judgment Is Void; If So, Then Inefficiency/Lodestar Factors Must Be Considered On Remand.             Although unpublished, Alshamlan v. Arabian Restaurants, Inc., Case No. G057543 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 12, 2020) (unpublished) is must reading for disabled rights plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking a default judgment against a target defendant.             There, a balance-challenged

Scroll to Top