Many Of The Attorneys Billed At Least $1,300 Per Hour. According to an August 8, 2025 article by Andrew Khouri and David Zahniser in the Los Angeles Times, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, representing City of Los Angeles, in a
Latest from Marc Alexander - Page 5
Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers: Plaintiffs Prevailing On Wage Claims Were Properly Awarded $1,767,649.50 In Attorney’s Fees As Against Employer
Although Reducing The Requested Hourly Rates For Sonoma County, The Rest Of The Lodestar Request And 1.5 Positive Multiplier Request Were Affirmed. In Pelayo v. Utility Partners of America, LLC, Case No. A171211 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 7,
…
Appealability, Family Law: Denial Of 2030 Request For Fees, Pendency On Appeal, Could Not Result In A Subsequent Request Involving The Same Facts
The First Fee Award Appeal Divested Appellate Court Of Jurisdiction On Second Award. Weaklend v. Weaklend, Case Nos. D086167 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2025) (unpublished) confirms that an appellate court is divested of jurisdiction from
…
Costs, POOF!, Section 1717: Law Firm’s Attorney’s Fees Award Against Plaintiff Reversed As A Matter Of Law Based On Trope Prohibition
Costs Against Plaintiff Also Narrowed To Law Firm’s Work On An IIED Claim. What happened in Martin v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Case Nos. H050803 et al. (6th Dist. July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is that plaintiff brought a
…
Request For Admissions, Section 998: Prevailing Defendants Entitled To $108,000 In Costs-Shifting Under Section 998 And $39,140 For RFA Unreasonable Denials
Opinion Shows How Substantial Expenses Can Be Shifted. Doe v. Accor Hotels & Resorts, LLC, Case No. A167247 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2025) (unpublished, posted on July 22, 2025) was where a prevailing defendant group
…
POOF!, Section 998: Make Sure Your 998 Offers Are Not Ambiguous And Only Targeted For Claim In the Lawsuit, With The Defense Losing A $231,458.30 Award On The Offer
If You Include Language Like “Or Could Have Been Brought,” This Might Well Be Invalidating For An Offer—Drafting Tip to All! Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Enchante Accessories, Inc., Case No. B337902 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 25, 2025)
…
Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Of $105,000 Were Justified Against Litigant And Its Counsel, But . . . .
Sanctions Against Counsel Before They Appeared In The Action Had To Be Carved Out. Alanic International Corp. v. Wilson Trial Group, Case No. B334512 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 23, 2025) (unpublished) is a good refresher for litigants and
…
Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Tidrick Opinion Now Published
Substantial Reduction Needed To Be Restudied. On June 29, 2025, we posted on Tidrick v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 22, 2025) (now published), but unpublished at the time. It basically reversed a fee
…
Section 1717: 4/1 DCA Decides That An Attorney-Spouse Representing His Other Spouse On A Claim Or Defense, Shared With Spouse, Is Not Automatically Disqualified From Recovering Fees Under Trope
Inquiry Is Factually Based; At The End, Other Spouse Did Not Show That There Was A True Attorney-Client Independent Representation. We have posted often on Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995), which held that lawyers appearing in pro per
…
Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Parties In A Residential Landlord-Tenant Dispute Stipulated To No Recovery Of Fees Or Costs Beyond $1,000, That Cap Was Enforceable
$14,000 In Routine Costs Reversed Because It Exceeded The $1,000 Cap. Freedom of contract was the theme resonating in the result in Gogal v. Deng, Case No. D084158 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 22, 2025) (published). The case was
…