Alexander J. Doherty

CURRENT, REPRESENTATIVE WATER LAW-RELATED MATTERS

• Representing investor-owned water utility in litigation over seawater desalination facility in Monterey County.
• Representing owners of thousands of acres of farmland in Madera County with respect to allocation of groundwater under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

REPRESENTATIVE APPELLATE MATTERS

• Decathlon USA, LLC v. HSE Associates, LLC, No. 24-708, 2025 WL 2837735 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2025). Successfully defended a commercial real estate entity on an appeal arising from a federal declaratory judgment action, where the Ninth Circuit held the case was not ripe for review. The court affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This outcome underscores the strict ripeness standards governing declaratory relief claims and the importance of concrete, non-speculative disputes.
• 2503 Haste St. Owner, LLC v. FanX, Inc., No. A170061, 2025 WL 3687689 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2025). Successfully defended an appeal challenging the trial court’s refusal to vacate a judgment entered against the tenant in a commercial unlawful detainer action. The Court of Appeal held the tenant’s appeal of the underlying judgment was untimely and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the post-judgment motion to vacate, rejecting arguments based on lease commencement provisions and newly submitted evidence. The decision reinforces the procedural limits of post judgment relief and confirms that commercial tenants cannot withhold rent while remaining in possession of a property based on disputed repair issues.
• 2503 Haste St. Owner, LLC v. FanX, Inc., No. A170902, 2025 WL 3687686 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2025). Successfully defended an appeal upholding an attorney fee award following a commercial lease dispute. The Court of Appeal affirmed the award in full, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency and admissibility of the supporting billing records.
• Stuart v. Cannavino, No. E078327, 2023 WL 5522479 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2023). Successfully obtained reversal of a defense summary judgment in favor of the landowner plaintiff in a real‑estate nondisclosure action involving unpermitted and unsafe residential structures. The Court of Appeal held the sellers’ motion failed to address multiple theories of liability, including habitability defects and undisclosed code violations, and therefore did not eliminate all triable issues. The judgment and related fee award were reversed, underscoring the necessity of fully negating every pleaded theory when seeking summary adjudication.
• California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist., 86 Cal. App. 5th 1272, 303 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227 (2022). Prevailed on behalf of a large water utility in a dispute over its proposed Monterey County desalination plant, obtaining a published decision retracing salient summary judgment procedures and establishing rules concerning compliance with the Government Claims Act for claims predicated on void contracts.
• Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. Direct Action Everywhere, 81 Cal. App. 5th 82, 296 Cal. Rptr. 3d 768 (2022). Obtained a published appellate win confirming California pleading requirements for alleging vicarious liability against a defendant in an anti-SLAPP suit.
• Schwab v. Steiner, No. B289983, 2020 WL 4783398 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2020). Successfully represented individual plaintiffs targeted by a litigation‑driven media campaign in defamation actions arising from smear‑style websites and paid blog posts. The Court of Appeal affirmed orders denying defendants’ Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (anti‑SLAPP) motions, holding that the challenged statements were not made in connection with any public issue and therefore did not constitute protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The decision reinforces the limits of the anti‑SLAPP statute and confirms that private, reputation‑targeting conduct cannot be immunized by recasting it as public commentary.
• Sealutions, LLC v. Schwab, No. B286897, 2020 WL 858113 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2020). Successfully represented defendants affiliated with a coastal real estate investment venture in an appeal from summary judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that plaintiffs could not establish an essential element of their fraud and contract claims—damages—because the entity at the center of the dispute had no remaining value, assets, or profits. The decision reinforces that plaintiffs must prove concrete, non‑speculative damages to survive summary judgment in business tort and contract actions
• Sealutions, LLC v. Schwab, No. B285072, 2019 WL 2591024 (Cal. Ct. App. June 25, 2019). Successfully represented an offshore investment fund that plaintiffs attempted to hale into California court via substituted service under the Corporate Securities Law. The trial court granted our motion to quash service of summons, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that plaintiffs’ claims did not arise out of the fund’s securities offerings and therefore did not satisfy the statutory nexus required to invoke the service mechanism relied upon. The decision underscores the strict limits on substituted service and the necessity of a true jurisdictional connection between the alleged misconduct and the statutory predicate for service.
• Fiscal Funding Co. v. Dones, No. A146377, 2018 WL 1062678 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018). Prevailed on behalf of the co‑founder and senior principal of a real estate development and construction firm in defending multiple attorney‑fee awards arising from long‑running arbitral, judicial, and related writ proceedings. The Court of Appeal upheld findings that the defendants were prevailing parties under SUDA, LLC’s  Operating Agreement and rejected challenges to the inclusion of an alter‑ego judgment debtor. The decision reinforces broad contractual fee‑shifting rights and the finality of prior appellate determinations.
• Behunin v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. App. 5th 833, 215 Cal. Rptr. 3d 475 (2017). Successfully defeated a claim of attorney-client privilege in the first published decision in California addressing whether attorney-client privilege extends to communications between a litigant and a public relations consultant retained to assist with “litigating in the press.”
• California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist., 18 Cal. App. 5th 571, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 110 (2017). Successfully obtained affirmance of a trial court order awarding a water utility client over $1 million in contractual attorneys’ fees, despite the underlying contract’s status as void ab initio and unenforceable.
• California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist., 2 Cal. App. 5th 748, 206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 439 (2016). Represented a large water utility involved in a water desalination project in Monterey County that collapsed due to a financial conflict of interest of a public official who worked on the project. Alex successfully obtained affirmance of the trial court order declaring agreements implementing the project void ab initio pursuant to Government Code section 1090.
• California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist., 2 Cal. App. 5th 748, 206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 439 (2016). Represented a large water utility involved in a water desalination project in Monterey County that collapsed due to a financial conflict of interest of a public official who worked on the project. Alex successfully obtained affirmance of the trial court order declaring agreements implementing the project void ab initio pursuant to Government Code section 1090.
• Fiscal Funding Co. v. Dones, No. A140460, 2015 WL 636084 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2015). Successfully defended a co‑founder and senior principal of a real estate development and construction firm from a trial court order amending a fee judgment to impose alter‑ego liability and awarding additional post‑judgment attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge portions of the amended judgment and affirmed the enforceability of contractual fee provisions for post‑judgment work. The decision underscores the importance of standing principles and the durability of contractual fee entitlements.
• Fiscal Funding Co. v. Dones, No. A135451, 2014 WL 7102624 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2014). Obtained full affirmance of a judgment denying a petition for writ relief brought by a co‑founder and senior principal of a real estate development and construction firm, challenging an arbitrator’s order disqualifying counsel. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to review an interlocutory arbitration ruling and that the disqualification did not exceed the arbitrator’s authority. The decision reinforces the narrow scope of judicial intervention in arbitration and the strong policy favoring arbitral autonomy.
• Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). Researched and drafted a significant section of an amicus brief in a landmark case regarding the Voting Rights Act of 1965