Author name: Marc Alexander

Sixth District Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award of $244,287.50 Against Monterey County Under the California Public Records Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Unpublished Decision Nicely Surveys Such Topics As Standard of Review, Lodestar, and Multiplier Principles.             In our June 30, 2008 post, we discussed a Shasta County Superior Court’s award of attorney’s fees against the City of Redding under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).  Government Code section 6259(d) provides for a mandatory […]

Elder Financial Abuse Attorney’s Fees Award Affirmed Against Attorney With Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division Six Sustains Award under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5.             Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a) provides for an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff where the defendant has been found liable for financial elder abuse under section 15610.30.            

Condominium Owner In Commercial Office Complex Denied An Award of Attorney’s Fees Against Condominium Association

Cases: Homeowner Associations

Court of Appeal Affirms Denial of Fee Request under Civil Code section 1354.             Section 1354 of the Davis-Sterling Common Interest Development Act, Civil Code section 1354(d), provides that the prevailing party shall be awarded attorney’s fees in an action to enforce the governing documents (usually, CC&Rs).  Because the statute contains no

Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoes AB 1830, Which Targeted Mortgage Brokers

Legislation

Governor Cites Unilateral Fee-Shifting Attorney’s Fees Provision As One Basis For His Veto.             Recently, on September 25, 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 1830, pending legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Ted Lieu (Democrat—Torrance).  AB 1830 would have expanded mortgage broker regulation and contained a provision that borrowers must be awarded attorney’s

Recent Title IX Suit Settlement Demonstrates How Fee-Shifting Statute Impacts The Structure of A Compromise

Cases: Civil Rights

$450,000 of the Settlement Was For Reimbursement of Attorney’s Fees.             Title IX is one of the federal fee-shifting attorney’s fees statutes that encourages litigants to confront various forms of discrimination.  It does play a role in settlements, as we next discuss in connection with a recent compromise reached between a California

Court of Appeal Affirms Award Of About $57,500 To Trial Attorney Suing Former Client For Successful Trial Efforts

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Six-Plus Hours During Trial Not Deemed Unreasonable For Litigation Attorney’s Efforts.             Client retained a trial litigation Attorney less than two months before a trial in which she claimed ownership to an Oakland condominium even though her relatives paid significant mortgage expenses and loan interest costs on the condominium.  Attorney hit the

Trial Court Improperly Struck Attorney’s Fees Prayer Where Complaint Demonstrated That Plaintiff Was The Catalyst For A Municipal Change In Position.

Cases: Pleading, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Complaint Resulting In Governmental Changes Suggested Basis for Fee Award Under CCP section 1021.5.             In our May 21, 2008 post, we explored Camenisch v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1698 (1996), which cautions against striking attorney’s fees prayer requests at the pleading stage unless a full opportunity for discovery has occurred. 

Shareholders Denied Award Of Attorney’s Fees In Derivative Action Because Results Only Personally Benefited the Shareholders

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Equity

Third District Find That Common Fund/Substantial Benefit Doctrines Were Inapplicable.             Under the equitable “common fund” or “substantial benefit” doctrines, a shareholder who successfully pursues a derivative action that establishes a common fund or a substantial benefit to the corporation may look to the corporation to reimburse the shareholder for the costs

Social Security Claimants: Ninth Circuit Clarifies Post-Gisbrecht Methodology For Determining Attorney’s Fees Awards

Cases: Social Security

Federal Court of Appeals Splits 2-1 on Factor Weighing Discretion Given to District Judges.             In Gisbrecht v.Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807-809 (2002), the United States Supreme Court set forth a new methodology for determining attorney’s fees in social security cases.  Under 42 U.S.C. section 406(b)(1)(A), a court rendering a judgment favorable

Scroll to Top