Ninth Circuit Also Determines that Student’s Representation By Paternal Grandmother Did Not Disqualify Him From Seeking Fees. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B) allows lower courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees as part of the costs to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a […]
Court of Appeal Also Affirms Refusal to Award Fees Under Anti-SLAPP Fee Shifting Provision or CCP § 527.6, Also Rebuffing Constitutional Challenges to § 527.8. Here is an interesting decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeal involving a refusal to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in a rather unusual harassment injunction
Except for Complaint in Intervention Fees, Court of Appeal Sustains $1,764,222.50 Fee Award. For those of you practicing in California’s Central Valley (or, for that matter, attorneys wanting some more insight into how judges gauge the reasonableness of fees), stay tuned for the next one. The Fifth District, in Ennis Commercial Properties, LLC
Fourth District, Division 3 Uses Equitable Maxims in Reaching Result. Our favorite line in the decision we next review is this: “Since delay defeats equity, we will hold our applause.” Above: Cartoon showing blinded “Justice” trying to drag the “Letter of the Law” through obstacles of “delay, postponement, re-trial, and technicality”. 1912.
No Abuse of Discretion in Denying Fees Altogether Where Plaintiff Awarded $11,500 But Requested $870,935.50 In Fees. In Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S162313 (Cal.Sup.Ct. Jan. 14, 2010) (certified for publication), our state supreme court faced the collision of two statutory schemes: the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA),
Procedurally Curious Easement Dispute Resulted in Split Opinion on Propriety of Section 1717 Fee Award. Even unpublished decisions result in a difference in opinion, as the next case involving Civil Code section 1717 demonstrates. Goldsmith v. Caldwell, Case Nos. C059420/C060427 (3d Dist. Jan. 11, 2010) (unpublished) involved a somewhat gnarly dispute between
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Guardianship Petition Should Have Been Dismissed. In our May 9 and August 22, 2009 posts, we explored developments in a petition brought by Paul Petersen to undertake certain actions for the alleged benefit of the octuplets of Nadya Suleman. The main battle was Mr. Petersen’s efforts to obtain an
Second District, Division 3 Finds Lack of Hearing Notice and Failure to Stipulate to a Temporary Judge Required As Bases For Overturning Order. A commissioner awarded a court-appointed conservatee’s attorney fees of $9,170 payable out of the estate. Conservatee’s husband appealed the fee order, obtaining a reversal in Conservatorship of Davis, Case No.
His Failure to Present a Claim to the County Barred Fees Request. In our May 3, 2009 post, we discussed former Kern County Sheriff Carl Sparks’ battle in a lawsuit brought by Kern County to obtain an award of attorney’s fees under several theories, but mainly Government Code section 996.4 (a statute requiring
Fourth District, Division 1 Finds Appeal Premature in Lots of Respects. In Reedy v. Bussell, Case No. D054569 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 6, 2010) (unpublished), trustee won an interlocutory judgment quieting title and ordering a partition by sale of a 131-acre ranch as against a trust beneficiary. The lower court awarded attorney’s fees
