Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Civil Harassment Petition Dismissed Without Prejudice Did Trigger Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 527.6

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$12,500 In Attorney’s Fees Was The Result. In Loew v. Robinson, Case No. B346996 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 22, 2026) (unpublished), a litigant dismissing a civil harassment restraining order, after obtaining a liminal temporary restraining order, was assessed $12,500 in attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 under a discretionary fee-shifting statute as against the […]

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Sisters Escaping Liability To County/Receiver In State Housing Law Abatement Receivership Were Entitled To Fees Under Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7(c)(11)—They Were Prevailing Parties

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

More Generalized H&S Code Section 17984 Did Not Trump More Specific, Recently Enacted Statute, With Sisters Being The Parties Obtaining Their Specific Litigation Objectives Although The County Did Somewhat Prevail On More Tangential Issues. In County of Del Norte v. Britt, Case No. A173145 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion

Appealability, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Because Order Taking A Civil Harassment Petition Off Calendar Was Not An Appealable Order, Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defense Had To Be Remanded To See If There Was A Prevailing Party

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

Whether A Prevailing Party Even Exists Should Be Determined By The Lower Court, But The Fee Motion Was Timely. In Raheb v. Williamson, Case No. B343023 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 4, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner sought to obtain a temporary restraining order against defendant, a condominium community fellow resident.  This request was denied pending a

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

Scroll to Top