Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Consumer Statutes, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Reduced Song-Beverly Attorney Fees By Almost $100,000 Because Plaintiffs Rejected § 998 Offer That Was Only $8,500 Less Than Ultimate Settlement

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

The Trial Court Improperly Cut Off Fees Incurred After Plaintiffs’ Rejection Of The § 998 Offer Instead Of Engaging In A Lodestar Analysis Of The Entire Case Pursuant to Civil Code § 1794(d).             In Reck v. FCA US LLC, Case No. A157966 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 24, 2021) (published), the trial court awarded […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $15,753 Discretionary Fee Award Against Unsuccessful Civil Harassment Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

82% Reduction Request Was Unreasonable Under The Circumstances.             In Huard v. Eldridge, Case No. B301903 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 19, 2021) (unpublished), the parties’ jointly owned investment property led to two series of civil harassment restraining order proceedings.  The first round went to petitioner, who was awarded $4,500 out of a requested $22,543

Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: The 1/5 DCA Affirms $2,961,264.29 Fees And Costs Award, Inclusive Of A 1.4 Multiplier, To Prevailing Plaintiff In Action For Violations Of A Conservation Easement

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s Attorneys, Who Bore The Risk Of Taking On A Partially Contingent Case With Important Public Interests At Stake, Displayed Exceptional Expertise and Skill In A Case Involving Nearly Five Years Of Contentious Litigation And A 19-Day Trial.             Following a 19-day bench trial in The Sonoma Land Trust v. Thompson, Case No. A159139 (1st

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Winning Dismissal Of Civil Harassment Restraining Proceeding Only Obtains $5,000 Out Of Requested $11,500 In Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Request Was Excessive, But Trope Argument Against Defendant Was Unavailing.             A plaintiff dismissing a civil harassment restraining order proceeding, without informing defendant or the lower court of the dismissal, was subject to defendant’s fee motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s), a discretionary fee-shifting statute.  The lower court in Khalili v. Hoag,

Special Fee-Shifting Statutes: In A 2-1 Decision, Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Determination That FOIA Plaintiff Who “Substantially Prevailed” By Obtaining Relief Through A Judicial Order Was Ineligible For Fees Award

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Dissent Was Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Show That His Lawsuit, Rather Than A Change In Circumstances, Was A Substantial Cause Of The Relief He Obtained.             The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows district courts to assess reasonable attorney fees and costs against the United States in any FOIA case in which the

Civil Rights, Costs, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes: Ninth Circuit Vacates And Remands $5,962.11 Costs Award To Defendant Landlord Prevailing On Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff Tenant Claiming Race And Disability Discrimination

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

In So Doing, The Ninth Circuit Joins The First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits In Holding That The Christiansburg Standard Applies To The Award Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs Under The Fair Housing Act.             The U.S. Supreme Court, in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), held that, under the fee-shifting provision

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

Scroll to Top