Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CCP § 473(a) Does Not Allow A Lower Court To Award Attorney’s Fees As A Condition Of Allowing An Amendment To Pleadings

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

4/1 DCA Disagreed With Treatise Commentary And An Older, Antiquated Supreme Court Case To The Contrary. In Amezcua v. Superior Court, Case No. D087216 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 24, 2026) (published), the appellate court reversed a $25,000 sanctions award under CCP § 473(a) to the extent it conditioned payment of attorney’s fees as a […]

Interest, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A False Claims Act Case, Postjudgment Interest Ran From The Date Of A Fees Award, Not An Earlier Order Confirming A Settlement

Cases: Interest, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Earlier Order Did Not Qualify As A Money Judgment. Agreeing and disagreeing with some other circuits, the Ninth Circuit in Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., No. 24-6247 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2026) (published) held that postjudgment interest on a False Claims Act attorney’s fees award under 28 U.S.C. section 1961(a) runs from the order awarding

Multipliers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Ninth Circuit Reverses and Remands A Multiplier Award In A False Claims Case, Disagreeing On The Merits Of The Award, But Agreeing That The Reason For The Enhancement Was Not Specific Enough.

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Dissenting Circuit Judge M. Smith concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in determining this case to be “rare and exceptional” and thereby justifying such an enhancement.  In must reading for attorneys seeking positive enhancements for a federal case in the Ninth Circuit, Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., Case No. 34-4103 (9th Cir.

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $6,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Respondent In CHRO Proceeding Was No Abuse Of Discretion Under CCP § 527.6

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Respondent’s Counsel Discounted His Fees; And, While Inability to Pay Is Not A 527.6 Factor, The Lower Court Did Take It Into Account By Allowing The Fee Award Payments To Be Made Over 30 Months. In Naeini v. Leuchter, Case No. B341481 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner lost a civil harassment

Costs, Requests For Admission, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A Complex Water Diversion/Trespass Case, 2/7 DCA Affirms Costs Award To Defendant City, Affirms Denial Of Supplemental Fees And Costs To City Under CCP §§ 1038 & 2033.420, And Reverses Costs Award To Defendant Water Committee Based On Reversing A Judgment In Its Favor

Cases: Costs, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Acting Presiding Justice Segal Penned The 3-0 Opinion On Various Merits, Costs, And Fee Issues In A 74-Page Opinion. In Beecham v. City of Azusa, Case No. B33843 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), deceased trustee, through a substituted personal presentative, sued two City entities (City), an irrigation company, and a water committee

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

Scroll to Top