During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Attorneys' Fees

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Plaintiff reasonably rejected earlier settlement offers requiring general releases and nondisclosure agreements and so was properly awarded her attorney fees under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act after agreeing to a settlement lacking those provisions.  Read More

In ruling on a motion for attorney fees under the Lanham Act, the district court is free to exercise its discretion in examining the totality of the circumstances to decide if the case is exceptional, including whether the suit or prelitigation conduct was frivolous, ill-motivated or objectively unreasonable.  Read More

A corporation and its lawyer behaved unethically in answering a city’s validation action when both knew the corporation was suspended for non-payment of state taxes; hence, they were properly denied a private attorney general fee award despite prevailing in the action.  Read More

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring appellant to bear third parties’ entire attorney fees in interpleader actions triggered by respondent’s enforcement of judgment while appeal was pending as appellant could have avoided these costs by posting an appeal bond.   Read More

In fee-sharing cases under the “common fund” or “common benefit” theories of fee awards, the court may properly assess the fee as a percentage of the common recovery, even though the “hours times hourly rate plus multiplier” approach has been adopted as the sole way to calculate fees under fee-shifting contract or statutory provisions.  Read More

Tenant was the prevailing party, entitled to an attorney fee award under LA’s Rent Escrow Account Program, when the landlord voluntarily dismissed an unlawful detainer action to recover possession of property that was subject to the Program.  Read More

The trial court violated a class action defendant’s due process rights by awarding plaintiffs' attorneys fees based on their time records which the court reviewed in camera and refused to let the defendant see.  Read More

Although plaintiff recovered only $6,600 of the $20,000 it sought against defendant, the trial court could reasonably find that plaintiff had met more of its litigation objectives than defendant had, and therefore plaintiff could be considered the prevailing party entitled to an attorney fee award under CC 5957.  Read More

1 6 7 8