§Why CasetextPricing

Azariah M Ellington Et Al vs Vikram Brar Et Al

Motion for Attorney Fees

18 Cited authorities

  1. Ketchum v. Moses

    24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,770 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

  2. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

    22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,234 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles

  3. Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University

    132 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 520 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to consider that payment for the case was deferred for four years in discussion of whether a multiplier was warranted was an abuse of discretion

  4. Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn.

    163 Cal.App.4th 550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 286 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that objecting party bears the burden of specifying items challenged with sufficient evidence and argument and "[g]eneral arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice"

  5. Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.

    129 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 310 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding one plaintiff lacked standing to pursue certain claims

  6. Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman

    47 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 331 times
    Holding that "communications preliminary to the institution of an official proceeding come within the privilege of" section 47(b)

  7. Cabral v. Martins

    177 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 185 times
    Concluding the plaintiff's cause of action arose from the attorneys' conduct as counsel, not from aiding and abetting evasion of child support

  8. Dowling v. Zimmerman

    85 Cal.App.4th 1400 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 227 times
    Holding statements made by attorney "while negotiating stipulated settlement of [an] unlawful detainer action" were "privileged under subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 47"

  9. Mann v. Quality Old Time Services Inc.

    139 Cal.App.4th 328 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 178 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a party who partially prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion must generally be considered a prevailing party unless the results of the motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve any practical benefit from bringing the motion"

  10. City of Colton v. Singletary

    206 Cal.App.4th 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 136 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming attorney fee award to party whose anti-SLAPP motion obtained a "'significant victory'" by "'prevent[ing] the City from compelling [him] to undertake significant construction and work'"

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,110 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

  12. Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16   Cited 2,960 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees