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 […]
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
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
In our June 10, 2009 post, we discussed Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S.D.A., Case No. 07-16077 (9th Cir. June 9, 2009), where certain public interest groups were denied recovery of attorney’s fees under EAJA. Recently, on December 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied one of the environmental group’s requests for en banc
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
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
“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
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
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
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
