Lower Court Cut Fees Request In Half, Which Was Erroneous, But Respondent’s Failure To Appeal Means The Reduction Did Not Aggrieve Appellants, the Tenants. In Papageorges v. Dana Point Harbor Partners, Case No. G063688 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June
Latest from Marc Alexander - Page 8
Family Law: Denial Of Needs-Based Family Code Section 2030 Fees Reversed Because Lower Court Made No Findings Of Ability To Pay
Consideration Of Equitable Factors Other Than Disparity and Ability To Pay Are Not Allowable Under Section 2030. In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B340089 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 23, 2025) (unpublished), the lower court denied a
…
POOF!, SLAPP: Cross-Defendant’s $146,495 SLAPP Fee Award Goes POOF! On Appeal
Remand Was Required Because Appellate Court Reversed SLAPP Grant On Three Out Of Six Cross-Claims. City of San Jose v. Gradetech, Inc., Case No. H051462 (6th Dist. June 17, 2025) (unpublished) is a situation where a cross-defendant successfully SLAPPed
…
Costs: Dismissal Of Unlawful Detainer Defendant Gave Entitlement To Recovery Of Mandatory Routine Costs
Lower Court’s Determination That No Party Prevailed For Routine Cost Purpose Was Reversed With Directions To Award Costs To Dismissed Defendant. In Shapell SoCal Rental Properties, LLC v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., Case No. G063663 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June
…
SLAPP: $14,037.27 SLAPP Fees/Costs Award Reversed And Remanded Because Appellate Court Found One Claim Should Not Be Granted
Trial And Appellate Fees/Costs Remanded To The Trial Court, Given Cross-Defendants’ Partial Success. Wald v. Martin, Case Nos. B335960 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 16, 2025) (unpublished), illustrates how a partial reversal of a SLAPP grant generally
…
Section 998: Cross-Defendant’s 998 Offer Was Invalid, So It Did Not Dilute Recovery By Defendant/Cross-Complainant On Other Defense Claims
Be Careful What You Put In Your 998 Offers, Don’t Overreach. In T&R Painting and Drywall v. Town Building & Development, Case Nos. B330375 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), there was a convoluted dispute
…
Construction, Costs, Ethics, Indemnity, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $4.176M Contractual Fee Award To General Contractor And Against Owner Affirmed On Appeal, But Expert Witness Costs Award To General Contractor Reversed As A Matter Of Law
Case Explores Fee Clause Interpretation, An Award Of Fees To An Unlicensed Associate Supervised By A California Attorney, And An Award Of Expert Witness Costs Which Were Not Pled Or Proven As Damages. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. 250 Fourth
…
Deadlines, Family Law: Ex-Wife’s Challenge To $193,000 In Attorney’s Fees Under Family Code Section 271 Or Contractual Marital Stipulation Fee Clause Affirmed On Appeal
Although Notice Of Motion For Appellate Fees Was Untimely, Record Showed That The Lower Court Granted An Extension Request To Ex-Husband As Moving Party. In Marriage of Richards, Case Nos. G062449 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 13,
…
Sanctions, SLAPP: Plaintiff Losing A SLAPP Motion On A Cross-Complaint Was Properly Not Granted 128.7 Sanctions For A Mistaken Payment Statement
Cross-Complainants Did Fess Up To The Problem, With The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Sanctions Hearing Further Showing No Abuse Of Discretion In The Denial Of The Sanctions Request. Although we take the cases as we find them
…
Probate, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Removed Trustee’s Failure To Challenge Fee Entitlement Under Judgment Affirmed In A Prior Appeal Also Disposed Of Same Challenge In A Second Appeal
However, The Lower Court Did Reduce The Fee Request Because of Unusually Redacted Time Entries. The Fifth District, in Trunick v. Calloway, Case No. F086766 (5th Dist. June 11, 2025) (unpublished), affirmed an award of attorney’s fees to a
…