Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Costs, Deadlines, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CHRO Prevailing Party On Modification Request And Appeal Work On Certain Orders Was Entitled To The Lower Court’s Fee Recovery

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of Costs Was Filed. In litigation which has gone on for a while and generated several appeals, the dust may have finally settled with the appellate court opinion in George v. […]

Common Fund, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Winning Derivative Claim On Behalf Of A Limited Partnership Was Properly Awarded Fees Under Corporations Code Section 15910.05(b) Out Of The Damage Recovery Obtained By The LP Against Defendant

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Section 15910.05(b) Is Not Displaced By Common Fund/Substantial Benefit Theories, Although Those Theories Also Supported The Fee Award. In Duboff v. Schermer, Case Nos. B343324 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 12, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff won a substantial damages recovery of almost $6 million against defendant in a limited partnership derivative action (where plaintiff

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Civil Harassment Fee-Shifting Statute Does Not Require A Determination Of Either Party’s Ability To Pay Before Awarding Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Compared To Other Statutes, Nothing In CCP § 527.6 Requires A Needs Assessment. In States v. MacKrell, Case No. G065683 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 9, 2026) (unpublished), after a lower court awarded $8,397.43 in attorney’s fees and costs for a request to extend a civil harassment restraining order against a litigant, the appellate court

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Award Of Fees Under Civil Code Section 3496 Against City Of El Monte Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Procedural Challenge Did Not Prevail. In City of El Monte v. Lincoln, Case No. B344087 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 23, 2026) (unpublished), City lost a post-judgment fee order against plaintiff based on losing successive demurrers based on Civil Code section 3496.  That section, applying to abatement by a municipality relating to a controlled substance,

Allocation, Probate, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where There Were Dueling Probate Petitions For Financial Elder Abuse Claims, The Prevailing Petitioner—Even Though A Cross-Respondent Defensing The Unsuccessful Elder Abuse Petition—Was Entitled To Intertwined Fee Work For Prevailing As A Petitioner And Defending As A Cross-Respondent

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Probate, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in

Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees:  $33,712.91 Fee Award To Prevailing Party Neighbor Was Affirmed In A Complicated Civil Harassment Matter

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

$650 Hourly Rate For 15-Year Attorney And $450 For A Paralegal Were Found Reasonable In A Contentious Santa Clara County Case. Two neighbors had very bad experiences with each other, with one neighbor obtaining a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) and being awarded $33,712.91 in prevailing party attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 against the

Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Undertaking: Prevailing Defendant In A Derivative Lawsuit—After Losing A Bond Motion–Can Seek Trial And Appellate Costs, Not Limited By The $50,000 Bonding Amount Specified In Corporations Code Section 17709.02

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Undertaking

Section 17709.02 Does Not Trump The CCP § 1032 Trial Routine Costs Statute Or The CRC 8.891 Appellate Routine Costs Provision. In Barrios v. Chraghchian, Case No. B341773 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 20, 2026) (published), a defendant brought a bond motion under Corporations Code section 17709.02 to have a derivative lawsuit plaintiff furnish security

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Winning Plaintiff In Car Towing Dispute Did Not Have Fee Recovery Entitlement Under Civil Code Section 3070

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Interlocutory Determination Of Entitlement Was Not Binding, With Section 3070 Being Inapplicable With Respect To Fee Recovery. Plaintiff won an apartment complex car towing dispute against some defendants, but she was denied requested attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 3070 in Ramsey v. Moore St. Investments, Inc., Case Nos. D084287 et al. (4th Dist., Div.

Equity, Section 1717: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Losing Reformation Cross-Claim, Where A Contractual Fee Shifting Provision Was Involved, Properly Assessed With An Award Of $547,587 In Attorney’s Fees To Two Prevailing Cross-Complainants

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reformation Cross-Claim Was “On The Contract,” Apportionment Was Unnecessary, And Awarding Against Cross-Defendant Only Was No Abuse Of Discretion. Modern civil litigation is an expensive, draining process, whether at the state or federal levels.  Where there is fee shifting at play, it becomes even more risky for litigants, as demonstrated by Favilli v. Tung, Case

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Reversal Of Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act Case Involving Relocation Benefits, Based On Lack Of Substantial Evidence, Justified Affirmance Of Over $94,600 In EAJA Fees To Plaintiffs

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

“Incurred” Under EAJA Is An Expansive Term, Encompassing Pro Bono Or Derivative Efforts. Plaintiffs, in Benally v. U.S. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, Case No. 23-3978 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2025) (published), obtained a reversal on substantial evidence grounds of an adverse relocation benefits decision (both at the administrative and district court levels)

Scroll to Top