Cases: Prevailing Party

Intellectual Property/Prevailing Party: $111,993 To Prevailing Copyright Defendant Justified Under 17 U.S.C. § 505

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Prevailing Party

  This One Involved a Copyright Fight Over a Hookah Water Container.       Costumed hookah smokers.  Matthew B. Brady, photographer.  Between 1850-60.  Library of Congress.      Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., Case No. 12-56331 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014) (published)—great name for a case, isn’t it—was copyright litigation over plaintiff’s claim that it had […]

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: LLC Co-Manager Obtaining Buy-Out In Dissolution After Two Years Of Litigation Entitled To Prevailing Party Fee Recovery Under LLC Operating Agreement

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee/Costs Award of $96,518 Affirmed on Appeal in Favor of Prevailing LLC Co-Manager.      Prevailing party status, we would observe, does focus on pragmatics, especially under Civil Code section 1717 (which allows recovery of fees under certain circumstances where there is a fees clause). The next case illustrates that in the context of a

Costs/Eminent Domain/Prevailing Party: Inverse Condemnation Plaintiffs Obtaining Earlier Reversal Of Defense Summary Judgment Entitled To Routine Appellate Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: Prevailing Party

  However, Attorney’s Fees Award Was Premature Until Judgment or Settlement Obtained Under Inverse Condemnation Fee-Shifting Provision.      In an earlier appeal, Plaintiffs had obtained a reversal of a defense summary judgment in an inverse condemnation case, with the appellate court directing that the lower court consider a request for fees under Code of Civil

Costs/POOF!/Prevailing Party: Reversal of Impact Fee Component Judgment Meant Prevailing Party Status Had To Be Revisited, But Not Costs Award

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Substantial Fee Award Went POOF!      Estancia Coastal, LLC v. KB Home Coastal, Inc., Case No. D062219 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 16, 2013) (unpublished) involved a big fight between a developer hit with $6.5 million in developmental mitigation fees against assignee of a land owner giving an option to developer. The

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation/Prevailing Party: Broadly-Worded Fees Clause Allowed For Recovery Of Fees On Noncontract Claims Following Voluntary Dismissal In Wake Of Pleading Motions

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Fee Motion Properly Filed and No Allocation Between Claims Required.      Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its contract-based/tortious interference case against one defendant without prejudice in the wake of pending pleading motions, with the trial court determining that fully requested fees of $16,926 were due to prevailing defendant.      Plaintiff’s multi-pronged attack in Oxnard Corner, LLC

Allocation/Costs/Prevailing Party: Wine Cellar Gets Hit With $28,659.50 Contract Damages Plus Prejudgment Interest PLUS $36,061.50 In Contractual Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Plaintiff Got Unqualified Win, With No Apportionment Needed; Two Winning Defendants Failed To Timely File For Costs.      This case stirred our curiosity, because it involves Veris Cellars, which appears to be a very nice winery located in the Paso Robles area in San Luis Obispo County. However, no matter who the litigant, beware

Prevailing Party/Sanctions/Special Fee Shifting Statute: U.S. District Judge England Denies Clean Water Act Attorney’s Fees To Defendant After Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Citizsens Suit Due To High Ongoing Litigation Costs

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  District Court Also Denied Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions After Defendant Withdrew Rule 11 Motion After Grant of Voluntary Dismissal; Reasons For Both — No Prevailing Party.      The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, allows citizen suits and has a fee-shifting clause which allows a district court, in its discretion, to award litigation

Family Law/Prevailing Party: Adoption Facilitator Defendants Obtaining Order Compelling Arbitration And Eventual Voluntary Dismissal Of Suit Were Prevailing Parties Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Basis for Fee Recovery Was Family Code Section 8638(c).      In Bates v. Kors, Case No. D063123 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished), registered adoption facilitator defendants obtained a statutory fee award of $14,760 against plaintiffs, parents attempting to adopt a surrogate baby, under Family Code section 8638(c). Section 8638(c) allows a

Scroll to Top