Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Indemnity, Special Fee Shifting Provision: Indemnity Agreement In Annexation Application Did Not Justify Attorney’s Fees Award In Favor Of Local Agency Formation Commissions And Against City/Developer

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Government Code Sections 56383 And 66016 Dictated The Result.             San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission v. City of Pismo Beach, Case No. B296968 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 3, 2021) (published) is an indemnity agreement fee clause dispute between a local agency formation commission and a city/developer as to the responsibility for fees […]

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: City Of Norco v. Mugar Is Now A Published Decision.

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

Trial Court’s Determination That Plaintiff City Was The Prevailing Party Was Proper Under Catalyst Theory, City’s Arrangement With Outside Counsel Did Not Violate Defendant’s Due Process Rights, And Fee Award Of $60,798.94 To City Was Not Meant To Penalize Defendant For Defending Property Rights.             We discussed City of Norco v. Mugar, Case No. E072858

SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Founding Partner Of Software Company Did Get Hit With Some Fee/Costs Exposure From Shareholder Derivative Case And Malicious Prosecution Case Which Was SLAPPed

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Not Huge Amounts, But Some Challenges Were Untimely And Some Were Not Meritorious.             To end the year, we post on Storix, Inc. v. Johnson, Case Nos. D075308/D077096 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 31, 2020) (unpublished), which was a very contested dispute between software company Storix and founder Mr. Johnson, which dragged in various directors

Homeowner Associations, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Denial Of Civil Code Section 5975(c) Fees To Prevailing HOA Was Error

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

The Davis-Stirling Act Fee-Shifting Provision, Section 5975(c), Mandates The Award Of Fees To The Prevailing Party With The Trial Court's Only Discretion Being To Determine The Reasonable Amount Of Fees.             Hope Ranch Park Homes Assoc. v. Rubin, Case No. B299932 (2d Dist., Div. 6 December 14, 2020) (unpublished) involved a $30,600 penalty assessed against

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $60,798.94 Awarded To Prevailing City In Abatement Nuisance Action Affirmed On Appeal

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

City’s Arrangement With Outside Counsel Did Not Violate Defendant Property Owner’s Due Process Rights, Fee Award Was Not Meant To Penalize Defendant For Defending Property Rights, And Trial Court Properly Determined City The Prevailing Party Under Catalyst Theory.             Plaintiff City and defendant property owner had a long history of conflict regarding substandard conditions on

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $2,000 In Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6(s) Attorney Fees Awarded To Prevailing Civil Harassment Respondent Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Petitioner Failed To Cite Any Legal Authority To Support Her Contention That The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion By Awarding Fees And Provided No Reporter’s Transcript Of The Evidentiary Hearing.             We have posted many times before on the importance of providing an adequate record on appeal and supporting arguments with legal authority and citations

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Partnership Buyout Fee Shifting Provision Is Discretionary, Involves Disjunctive Elements, And Requires Objective Lack Of Merit/Subjective Bad Faith Pursuit, Or Both

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Defendants Properly Denied Fees Under Corporations Code Section 16701.             Corporations Code section 16701, which applies to partnership buyout disputes involving a disassociated partner, authorizes an equitable award of attorney and expert fees “against a party that the court finds acted arbitrarily, vexatiously, or not in good faith.” (§ 16701, subd. (i).) The trial court

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $368.755 In Fees For Nursing Home Patient Recovery Of $195,000 Had To Be Revisited Based On California Supreme Court Reduction Of Statutory Damages

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Punitive Damages Are Still In Play.             Jarman v. HCR Manorcare, Inc., Case No. G051086 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 17, 2020) (unpublished) is a nursing home patient case with a $368,755 fee award under a Health and Safety Code fee-shifting provision which has quite a procedural history.  At the initial trial court level,

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $1,435 Fee/Cost Award Against Losing Plaintiff In Civil Anti-Harassment Action Was Properly Granted

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

No Costs Memorandum Required To Be Filed Because Fees/Costs Awarded Made Before Notices Of Dismissal/Entry Of Judgment Served By Plaintiff, Who Had Notice Of The Requests.             Plaintiff, a hair stylist at Chaddick’s beauty salon, was terminated and filed an anti-harassment petition against Ms. Chaddick, which action was dismissed after the trial court declined to

Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: County’s Enforcement Fees And Costs In Obtaining Receivership Appointment And Remediating Hazardous Property Conditions Are Not Entitled To Super-Priority Status Along With Receivership Expenses

Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Claims Of Competing Lienholders Had To Be Considered With Respect To Division Of Property Sale Proceeds.             In County of Sonoma v. U.S. Bank N.A., Case Nos. A155837/A157245 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 8, 2020) (published), the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s order conferring super-priority status to property sale proceeds on a receiver’s financial

Scroll to Top