Attorneys' Fees

A plaintiff who accomplishes no more than to defeat a defendant’s motion for qualified immunity is not entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to § 1988(b), because the plaintiff has not yet prevailed on any claim. Read More

To recover attorney fees under the catalyst theory and CCP 1021.5, the plaintiff must show that (1) the lawsuit was a substantial factor in the plaintiff's achieving the primary relief sought in its suit (whether by judicial decree, settlement or voluntary change), (2) the lawsuit had merit and achieved its catalytic effect by threat of victory, not by dint of… Read More

The second sentence of the FTC Holder Rule does not limit recovery of attorney fees under state statutes that render the holder liable for those fees, even on claims that can only be brought against the holder as a result of the FTC Holder Rule. Read More

A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a class action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act unless the complaint names 100 class members.  (Floyd v. American Honda Motor Co. (9th Cir, 2020) 966 F.3d 1027.)  Similarly, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an MMWA case unless no claim in the amount in controversy on each claim exceeds $25… Read More

Employer's arbitration clause was unenforceable because it was unconscionable.  The clause was a mandatory, non-negotiable requirement of employment.  It was procedurally unconscionable because it was given to plaintiff only in English, which he cannot read, and without a schedule of the arbitration fees he could be charged.  It was substantively unconscionable because it allowed the arbitrator to shift attorney fees… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that neither party prevailed or was entitled to an attorney fee award under the Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code 5975(e)) or the private attorney general statute (CCP 1021.5) in this suit by a condo owner against the condo association.  Although plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction and prevailed in forcing the condo… Read More

This case holds that consumers may recover uncapped attorney fees against holders under the FTC Holder Rule.  Though the attorney fees are part of the "recovery" that the Holder Rule itself caps, the FTC Holder Rule does not preempt any state laws, but merely prescribes a required contract clause.  So, Civil Code 1459.5 is not preempted and it allows full… Read More

Although an award of attorney fees to the plaintiff in a Public Records Act suit is mandatory if the plaintiff is the prevailing party (Gov. Code, 6259(d)), the trial court may exercise its discretion and deny a fee award if it concludes that the plaintiff obtained documents that are so minimal or insignificant as to justify a finding that the… Read More

The trial court properly determined, as a matter of law, that defendant attorneys lacked probable cause to file and to continue prosecuting an action by a mobilehome park resident against the park owner for interference with the resident's contract to sell her mobilehome to a third party.  The Mobilehome Residency Law at the time allowed park owners to require would-be… Read More

In this FEHA employment discrimination case, the court holds the employer's arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable because (1) it required the employee to demand arbitration or complain to the employer within the time for filing an administrative complaint with the FEHC, whereas the statute of limitations on the claim would potentially extend two more years, one for the FEHC to… Read More

On an earlier appeal, the court held that the indemnity provision that the plaintiff required the defendant to sign in order to apply for approval of its development project was not supported by consideration and that plaintiff had no statutory authority to impose an indemnity agreement as a condition of plaintiff's statutory duty to consider defendant's application.  On this appeal,… Read More

Following Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 396, this decision holds that the FTC Holder Rule does not limit recovery of attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and costs. Read More

Where a prevailing plaintiff succeeded on only some claims, the court should make a two-part inquiry: “First, did the plaintiff fail to prevail on claims that were unrelated to the claims on which he succeeded? Second, did the plaintiff achieve a level of success that makes the hours reasonably expended a satisfactory basis for making a fee award?  Here, the… Read More

Following David S. Karton, A Law Corp. v. Dougherty (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 600, this decision holds that when a defendant pays a default judgment entered against him before successfully moving to vacate the default judgment (and hence before filing an answer), Civ. Code 1717(b)(2) applies, making the defendant the prevailing party for purposes of a fee award if the plaintiff… Read More

Ordinarily, an order on a motion for an attorney fee award is appealable as a post-judgment order under CCP 904.1(a)(2).  But here, to maintain the trial court's jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, the parties agreed that judgment would not be entered dismissing the action until after defendant had paid the settlement amount and any attorney fees awarded by the… Read More

A defendant that files an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike under CCP 425.16 may seek attorney fees (based on prevailing on the Anti-SLAPP motion) in one of three ways:  as part of the Anti-SLAPP motion, by a post-judgment memorandum of costs, or by a post-judgment motion for an attorney fee award.  This decision holds that if the defendant chooses either of… Read More

Following Duale v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 718, this decision holds that a valid and reasonable section 998 offer by the seller, where the buyer recovers less than the offer, precludes recovery by the buyer of post-offer attorneys’ fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act claim.  Here, the defendant's initial… Read More

A district court may approve a class action settlement that provides monetary relief only in the form of cy pres payments to non-parties, so long as distribution to class members is not possible and the recipients of the cy pres payments are appropriately chosen in light of the nature of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying statutes, and… Read More

A breach of contract is not "wrongful conduct" sufficient to support a claim for interference with prospective economic relationships.  Here, plaintiff narrowed its claim to interference based on the defendant's breach of a nondisclosure agreement.  Held, the trial court erred in submitting that claim to the jury since it was the court's responsibility to determine whether the alleged conduct was… Read More

Plaintiff recovered a $115,000 jury verdict after having rejected defendant's $200,000 998 offer.  This decision holds that the defendant's post-offer costs awarded by the trial court under CCP 998 must be subtracted from the $115,000 jury verdict before computing the amount of the judgment payable to the workers' comp. lienor under Lab. Code 3856.  Since the post-offer costs exceeded $115,000,… Read More