Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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             Jarman v. HCR Manorcare, Inc., Case No. G051086 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 17, 2020) (unpublished) is a nursing home patient case with a $368,755 fee award under a Health and Safety Code fee-shifting provision which has quite a procedural history.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

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Dueling Fee Motions By County And Supervisor Produced An Interesting Legal Discussion By The Sixth District On Municipal Fee/Indemnity Shifting Provisions

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

In The End, the Supervisor Might Get Some Litigation Reimbursement Fees Of A Somewhat Limited Nature.             Municipality practitioners should be well advised to read County of San Benito v. Scagliotti, Case No H045887 (6th Dist. Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished) about fee shifting statutes under the Political Reform Act (PRA) and Government Claims Act (GCA), not

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Unilateral Fee-Shifting Clause In DFEH’s Favor Preempted An Award Of Private Attorney General Fees To Prevailing Defendants

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

Specific Statute Prevailed Over More General One As Far As Fee Entitlement.             When two fee-shifting statutes collide, they sometimes can be reconciled but sometimes cannot—the latter was the conclusion in Dept. of Fair Employment & Housing v. Cathy’s Creations, Inc., Case No. F077802 (5th Dist. Sept. 9, 2020) (published).             There, defendants prevailed in

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Brother Who Had To Bear Fees For Fruitless Appraisal Process In Involuntary Dissolution Buyout Nonperformance By Brothers Was Entitled To Appraisal Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, He Was Not Entitled To Injunction-Related Fees Not Directly Tethered To The Statutory Buyout Appraisal Process.             A statutory scheme, when considered in context, may well govern what attorney’s fees are awardable in a certain context.  That is what occurred in Schrage v. Schrage, Case No. B288478 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 19, 2020)

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: District Court’s Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To ERISA Plaintiff Bringing Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claim Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s Requested Fees Were Incurred During His Successful Administrative Appeal For Denial Of Benefits, Not For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, Nor During An Action In Civil Court, And Were Therefore Not Recoverable.            The Employment Retirement Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides for two types of actions – a claim for denial of benefits

Scroll to Top