Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Respondent In Case Where CHROA Petition Was Dismissed And Where There Was Informal Agreement On Future Behavior, Had His Fee/Costs Denial Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$9,193.30 Fee/Costs Award Denied, With Appellate Court Determining Respondent Was Not The Prevailing Party, Was No Abuse Of Discretion. CCP § 527.6(a) does allow a prevailing party in a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) proceeding to obtain discretionary fees and costs from a trial judge.  The issue usually boils down to who is a “prevailing

Block Billing, Costs, Hourly Rates, Laffey Matrix, Multipliers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: This Next Case Is A Poster Child For How NOT To Support Or Defend Fee And Costs Motions

Cases: Block Billing, Cases: Costs, Cases: Hourly Rates, Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

In The End, The Defense May Have Gotten The Better Side Of It, But The Appellate Court Rejected That Nothing Was Owed To Plaintiff—The Reduced Fee Award Affirmed In No Uncertain Terms In A Remanded Voting Rights Case. We hardly know where to start on this one, but Robles v. City of Ontario, Case No.

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $137,184 Attorney’s Fees Award Under Corporations Code Section 1604 Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Prevailing Plaintiff Did Not Bring An Action Or Proceeding Under Sections 1600 Or 1601 Such That Section 1604’s Permissive Fee Statute Did Not Apply. The next case we post on counsels that if you are seeking attorney’s fees under a statute, you must often bring an action or a proceeding under that specific statute under

Special Fee Shifting Statutes (Ordinance): Prevailing Party City Of South Gate’s $99,370.50 Fee Award On A Public Nuisance Cross-Claim Under A First Amended Cross-Complaint Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

South Gate Did Not Need To Pray For Fees In The Initial Cross-Complaint Not Including A Public Nuisance Cross-Claim—The First Amended Cross-Complaint Was The Trigger, Which Did Include A Public Nuisance Claim And Prayer For Fee Recovery. After winning a summary adjudication motion on a First Amended Cross-Complaint including a public nuisance cross-claim (which was

Lodestar, Multipliers, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Prevailing Plaintiff Won Substantial Trial And Appellate Victories On The Scope Of Penal Code Section 496(c), Substantial Fee Award Was Affirmed On Appeal With A Minor Remand Issue

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lodestar, Not Contingency Fee Agreement Amount, Governed Work On Section 496(c) Work, Requiring A Remand On That Sole Issue. Siry Investments, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, Case No. B340681 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 23, 2026) (unpublished) involved a long-ranging dispute between the parties with respect to the scope of relief and attorney’s fees allowed under Penal Code

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Petitioner Physician Failing To Prevail On Peer Review Suspension Proceedings Under Business And Professions Code Section 809.9 Properly Was Assessed With Non-Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees As Against Defendants

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Did Give Rise To Fee Exposure, Because the Petition Was Frivolous In Nature. In the last few days, we have posted on Business and Professions Code section 809.9, which allows fees to a substantially prevailing party in a peer review suspension of privileges proceeding where the plaintiff’s conduct was frivolous,

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Six Plaintiffs Obtaining A $3.85 Million Jury Verdict After Seven Years Of Litigation Were Awarded $4,815,033.25 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee-Shifting Statute Was A Provision In The Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In Moore, et al. v. Rubin, No. 25-613-v (2d Dist. Sept. 4, 2026), the Second Circuit was reviewing an attorney’s fees award under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which has a provision allowing a prevailing plaintiff to obtain recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees, scrutinizing

POOF!, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Appellate Court Reversed CDAFA Jury Verdict Against Two Defendants, Prevailing Party Fees To Plaintiff Went POOF! On Appeal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lower Court’s Denial Of Fees To A Prevailing Defendant Had To Be Reassessed Under The Court’s Earlier Hay Opinion Relating to Prevailing Defense CDAFA Fee Recovery Penal Code section 502(e)(2) of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) allows a trial court to discretionarily award attorney’s fees, although there is no prevailing party language.  In Hay

Celebrities, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Based On Dismissal Of A Defamation Counter-Claim, Blake Lively Obtains $407,451 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs In Contentious Litigation Against Co-Star Justin Baldoni Based On Civil Code Section 47.1(b)

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, She Had Sought Over $8 Million In Fees And Costs, With District Judge Only Awarding For Fees/Costs For Defamation Counter-Claim Work And Making Other Reductions. This post gives us a chance to discuss Civil Code section 47.1(b), which has a prevailing defendant fee/costs-shifting provision. Section 47.1 protects a defendant’s communications about sexual harassment by deeming

Reasonableness Of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $53,527 In Attorney’s Fees To Winning Neighbor In Civil Harassment Restraining Order Proceeding Was Affirmed On Appeal

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

Lower Court Did Reduce The Requested Fees By About 30%. A neighbor won a civil harassment restraining order proceeding in Judson v. Tait, Case No. B346920 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 14, 2026) (unpublished), subsequently requesting prevailing party fees of $76,467 under a fee-shifting statute in this area.  The lower court reduced the request by

Scroll to Top