Cases: Consumer Statutes

Mike And Marc’s Top Twenty Decisions For 2009

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Part 2 of 2: Second Ten Grouping—Nos. 1-10.      We already gave you our top 11-20 decisions previously this month.      As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of […]

Marc And Mike’s Top Twenty Decisions For 2009

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Social Security, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Part 1 of 2: First Ten Grouping—Nos. 11-20.      As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of the decision. Rather, we try to survey decisions of interest in different

EAJA: Ninth Circuit Reverses Fee Award Because Various Federal Court Actions Were Not Equivalent To Judicially Sanctioned Relief

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Temporary Stay, Magistrate Tentative Summary Judgment Ruling, and Dismissal Based on Ripeness/Mootness Did Not Justify Fee Award.      The prevailing party in a dispute governed by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412, is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees if the party achieved “a material alteration in the legal

Legal Aid Organizations Receiving Grants Under LSC: Federal Restrictions On Seeking Attorney’s Fees Beat As-Applied Constitutional Challenges

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Ninth Circuit So Rules in Split Decision.      Congress has imposed certain restrictions on legal aid organizations that receive federal grants through the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), including that grantee attorneys cannot claim, collect, or retain statutory attorney’s fees. (45 C.F.R. sec. 1642.3.) Recently, in Legal Aid Services of Oregon v. Legal Services Corporation, Case

Consumer Statutes: Prevailing Defendant Under Consumer Statute Used Only As UCL Predicate Cannot Recovery Fees From Losing Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes

“Borrowing” Statute’s Fee Provision Does Not Translate to Fee Exposure Under UCL.      In a case of first impression, the Second District, Division Three reconciled two conflicting statutory schemes, deciding that a prevailing defendant was not entitled to a fee recovery under a fee-shifting statute used only as a “borrowing” statute predicate under California’s Unfair

Consumer Statutes: Court Of Appeal Reverses Refusal To Award Reasonable Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiff Under Settlement Arrangement With Car Manufacturer

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Settlement, Cases: Standard of Review

Fourth District, Division 3 Utilizes De Novo Review to Determine Plaintiff’s Entitlement to Fee Award.      The next case demonstrates how the standard of review can be appeal determinative. The appellate panel utilized the de novo standard, which led to the conclusion that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff entitlement to fees under car

EAJA Federal Circuit Court Split: U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Case On Whether Social Security Disability Fee Awards Are Payable To Client Or Client’s Attorney

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

High Court To Resolve Split Among Federal Courts of Appeals.      In our September 12, 2009 post on Stephens v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 2009), the case involved a split among the federal circuit courts on whether Social Security disability fee awards go to the claimants or their attorneys. This is not an

Consumer Statutes And Requests For Admissions: Court Of Appeal Denies Unfair Competition Defendants’ Request For Fees Under Section 17200 Or Under RFA Sanctions Statute

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717

No Basis For Fees Based On Defensed Claims; No Abuse of Discretion in Denying RFA Sanctions.       In Chichi v. Ennen, Case No. D053410 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiffs brought a class action under California’s unfair competition statute based on violations of several other California statutes. After plaintiffs rested their case-in-chief

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Split Among Federal Circuit Courts On Whether EAJA Fee Awards Are Payable To Claimant Rather Than Attorney, Allowing Offsets By Government Entities

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth Circuit Concludes Fees Are Payable to Claimant.      Here is an interesting issue that has drawn a split among federal courts of appeals: whether attorney’s fees payable under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2812 (EAJA), in Social Security Act benefit cases go to the claimant or the attorney. The importance

Scroll to Top