May 2010

Private Attorney General Statute: CEQA Winner Entitled To Substantial Fee Recovery As Well As Fees For Prevailing On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms $265,715.55 Fee Award Under CCP Section 1021.5.      In Center For Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, Case Nos. D056652/D056648 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 25, 2010) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion not published), two nonprofit organizations successfully challenged the County of San Bernardino’s approval of an […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: U.S. Supreme Court Decides That ERISA Fee Recovery Does Not Depend On “Prevailing Party” Status

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  No Merits Judgment Necessary, Says Unanimous High Court.     In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., Case No. 09-448 (U.S. May 24, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) gives district courts discretion to award fees to either party, even

Arbitration: Parties’ Stipulation To Allow Post-Arbitration Fee Recovery Allows Fees For Sustaining Arbitration Award On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration

  Sixth District Honors Parties’ Stipulation Relating to Fee Recovery.      In Kontoudakis v. Beri-Scott Co., Case No. H034544 (6th Dist. May 24, 2010) (unpublished), the parties’ stipulation for arbitration had an important fee recovery provision. That provision stated: “Should either party be forced to seek enforcement of the arbitration award beyond simply filing it

Non-Taxable Federal Costs: District Courts Can Award Non-Taxable Costs Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit So Holds in 2-1 Decision; Dissent Thinks Majority Decision Allows Recovery of Non-Taxable Costs as Attorney’s Fees in Most Fee-Shifting Statutes.      The next case is an interesting one, provoking a 2-1 decision on an important issue: when are non-taxable costs awardable as attorney’s fees under federal fee-shifting statutes. The question did not

Eminent Domain: Substantial Inverse Condemnation Fee Award Reversed Because Trial Court Did Not Explain Why It Chose Contingency Fee Amount Versus Hourly Fee Amount

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Eminent Domain

  Lower Court Failed to Analyze the Factors in Yuki.      After plaintiffs won a bench award of over $3.4 million in a nuisance/inverse condemnation action, the Second District, Division Two, in Karim v. City of Pomona, Case No. B210049 (May 18, 2010) (unpublished), reversed a favorable attorney’s fees award in favor of plaintiff homeowners

Scroll to Top