June 2012

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Education Code Section 44944(e)(2) Justified Fee Award To Employee Not Dismissed But Where Governing Board Tried To Structure A Decision To Avoid Fee Award

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Third District Would Not Elevate Form Over Substance.      We don’t have that many times to do blogs on fee issues for school districts and tenured teachers. Well, here is one for you both.      In Boliou v. Stockton Unified School Dist., Case No. C068266 (3d Dist. June 25, 2012) (published), the school district […]

Appeal/Apportionment/Damages/Tort Of Another: $330,000 Fee Award To Winning Plaintiff Remanded To Apportion Work To Clearing Title Tasks

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Tort of Another

  Slander of Title Work Needs to be Apportioned Out; No Fees For Appellate Work.      Defendant in Johnson v. Grayson, Case No. G044975 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 22, 2012) (unpublished) lost a quiet title case (also having a slander of title claim), but appealed a $330,000 adverse fee award grounded on the tort

Consumer Statutes/Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Consumer Winning Fraud Case Against Motor Vehicle Retailer Doesn’t Get Fees Under Vehicle Code Statute, Doesn’t Get Fees Under Contractual Provisions Based On Surety Law, But Does Get Them

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Wow–Fee Entitlement Can Be Had, If You Are Tenacious And Can Get to the Right Independent Basis!      The Fifth District’s decision in Pierce v. Western Surety Co., Case No. F062096 (5th Dist. June 22, 2012) (published) goes to show you that the fee entitlement race sometimes goes to the tenacious. All you need

Private Attorney General: Corporate Entity Advancing The State Of The Law, But Trying To Avoid Liability For Past Actions, Did Not Serve Public Interest

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Fee Recovery Not Allowable Under Adoption of Joshua S.      Adoption of Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945, 949, 956 (2008) established an additional restriction on the scope of California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5): fees cannot be awarded against someone who has not adversely affected the rights of the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: ERISA Attorneys Unite–Ninth Circuit Addresses “Appropriate Equitable Relief” Language Under Section 502(a)(3)

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Attorneys Properly Dismissed From Controversy, But Matter Remanded to See If Employer/Fiduciary Had to Bear Proportionate Fees And Costs Incurred by Plaintiff Employee In Recovering Third Party Tortfeasor/Uninsured Motorist Proceeds.      Well, we do not usually have a lot of ERISA issues to report on. Not today, we do.      CGI Technologies and Solutions,

Civil Rights: Plaintiff Losing FEHA Case Against Individual Liable For $40,000 Fee Award Based Upon Prosecuting Frivolous Action

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

  Plaintiff Placed On Notice of Fee Exposure; Ability to Pay Was Considered.      Generally, plaintiffs losing FEHA cases do not face fee or costs exposure, except for an important BUT. BUT they will face fee exposure if the plaintiff’s action is found to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in

Arbitration: Nonprevailing Party In Arbitration Still Entitled To Postconfirmation Award Fees Of $591,818.18

Cases: Arbitration

  Postarbitration Proceedings Distinct From Arbitration Proceedings For Purposes of Fee Award.      Prime Associates Group, LLC v. NAMA Holdings, LLC, Case No. B226167 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 19, 2012) (unpublished) is a case that upheld a substantial attorney’s fees award, drawing a distinction in the process between postarbitration and arbitration proceedings.      NAMA

Scroll to Top