D.C. Court of Appeals So Rules in Two Cases. Two and a half years ago, Congress enacted the Open Government Act, making it easier for plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits. Prior to the new Act, only FOIA plaintiffs actually awarded relief could recover fees. However, the Open […]
Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Arbitration Fee Award on Public Policy Grounds on Appeal. Code of Civil Procedure section 1284.3(a) is a pro-consumer arbitration provision that states an arbitrator/neutral cannot administer an arbitration for a consumer in a way that makes the consumer responsible to pay attorney’s fees or costs if he/she is
Second District, Division 3 Also Finds 998 Fee Waiver In Not Illegal under California’s Lemon Law. The next case, involving the interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 998 pretrial offers and California consumer/civil fee shifting statutes, basically holds plaintiff to the bargain reached when he accepted the 998 offer made by defendants.
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
$6,511.46 Costs Award Against Plaintiff Reversed, Because Bad Faith/Harassment Is Necessary Predicate For Adverse Costs Award in Favor of Prevailing Defendant. In Rouse v. Law Offices of Rory Clark, Case No. 09-55146 (9th Cir. May 3, 2010) (for publication), a district judge awarded $6,511.46 in routine costs to a prevailing defendant in a Fair
Fourth District, Division 1 Sustains Lower Court Determination Based on Its Experience With Hourly Rates. In Cauchon v. Forest River, Inc., Case Nos. D053864/D054433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 9, 2010) (unpublished), mobilehome purchasers did well in a Song-Beverly Act Warranty Act suit with a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of prevailing plaintiffs. Purchasers
Second District, Division 8 Affirms $84,500 Fee Award to Prevailing Plaintiff in CLRA Action. After two appeals, plaintiff finally has won finality with respect to a $84,500 fee award entered in his favor under the CLRA after winning a battle against a Porsche Turbo Coupe seller for a refund because the car needed various repairs.
Court of Appeal Also Rejects Asymmetrical Interpretation of Fee-Shifting Provision. The next case, Alarcon v. Fireside Bank, Case Nos. A117148 & A118566 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2010) (unpublished), pitted two different statutes against each other, both contained in the Rees-Levering Automobile and Sales Finance Act (ASFA), Civil Code section 2981 et
$19 Million in Fee Spent in McCourt’s Divorce. Frank McCourt has estimated his divorce-related expenses at $5-$10 million, while Jamie McCourt has estimated her expenses as $9 million (with Jamie asking Frank to pay them), all in the on-going and apparently acrimonious divorce proceeding between Los Angeles Dodger owner Frank and former officer Jamie.
Second District, Division 1 Affirms Substantial Judgment in Favor of Lemon Law Plaintiff. California’s Lemon Law, codified in the Song-Beverly Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.), has a mandatory fee-shifting provision in favor of prevailing plaintiffs. (See Civ. Code, § 1794(d).) The next decision affirmed a substantial judgment, inclusive of compensatory
