Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 Siry Investments, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, Case No. B340681 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 23, 2026) (unpublished) involved a long-ranging dispute between the parties with respect to the scope of relief and attorney’s fees allowed under Penal Code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

Reasonableness Of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Although The Immigration Consultants Act Does Allow For Fee Recovery, The Lower Court Did Not Err In Reducing $40,725 Fee Request Down To $5,885.66

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

Reductions Fell Within The Deferential Standard Of Review For Fee Requests Under The Record In The Case Where A Fee Request Was Perceived As Excessive. The next case, Immigrants Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Sklar, Case No. B343410 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2026) (unpublished), shows that even though a litigant gets beyond a

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

Scroll to Top