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) […]

None Of The Claimed Bases Justified A Fees Award. In City of Grass Valley v. Coulter, Case No. C102046 (3d Dist. Sept. 19, 2025) (unpublished), City obtained a workplace restraining order against Coulter under CCP section 527.8, subsequently later obtaining a contempt order against Coulter for violating the restraining order. The contempt order was annulled

Consumer Legal Remedies/Elder Abuse Statutes Did Not Preempt, Although Defense Costs Had To Be Reviewed On Remand To Make Sure They Were Not Inflated In Nature.                In Johnson v. Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC, Case No. A170383 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 19, 2025) (published), the question was whether a continuing care retirement community

No Fee Entitlement Was Shown.                Plaintiff obtained mandate relief against a municipality in a permit revocation dispute, subsequently moving for attorney’s fees under reciprocal fee-shifting provisions of the Perris Municipal Code relating to public nuisances.  The lower court denied Plaintiff’s motion for fees under the municipal code.  That determination was affirmed on appeal in

Petitioner’s Dilatory Request For Subpoena Enforcement Before The DMV Hearing Officer Did Not Warrant Fees Under Government Code Section 800.                Government Code section 800 requires an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing complainant in a civil action to review a ruling in an administrative proceeding, but only if the award, finding, or determination

Because The Statute Is Discretionary, The Trial Judge Was The One To Determine If Fees Should Be Awarded.                In G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks, Case No. B337103 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 5, 2025) (unpublished), the 2/6 DCA reversed a trial court’s ruling that there was no Brown Act violation because an

Welfare & Institutions Code Section 15657.5 Allows For A Mandatory Fee Award.                In Letitchevski v. Sosa, Case No. B333962 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 22, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff, on behalf of a dependent father, won a financial elder abuse claim involving father’s adult son, by which a property transfer was voided, $13,500 was awarded

With An Important “If”: If Plaintiff’s Case Was Objectively Without Foundation When Brought Or Plaintiff Continued To Litigate After It Became So.                Hay v. Marinkovich, Case No. D082561 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2025) (published) held that a prevailing defendant in a Penal Code section 502 case (section 502 prohibits an unauthorized use