Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 […]

Costs, Section 998, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Gets Second Chance At Arbitration And Post-Arbitration Costs Where Trial Court Erroneously Interpreted That The Parties’ Insurance Agreement Precluded The Award Of Arbitration Costs

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

Insurance Policy Did Not Preclude Recovery Of Costs Under Sections 998 Or 1293.2 And Strictly Limited Arbitrator’s Authority To Decide Only Plaintiff’s Entitlement To Damages And The Amount Thereof.             In Storm v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co., Case No. B299277 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 24, 2020) (published), plaintiff and defendant insurance company

Civil Rights, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Water District Correctly Denied CCP § 1038 And FEHA Fees Against Non-Prevailing Plaintiff Who Was Represented When Civil Rights Suit Was Filed And Did Not Contest Defense Dispositive Motion

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

No Evidence That Case Was Filed Or Maintained For An Improper Purpose.             In Fong v. Eastern Municipal Water Dist., Case No. E071088 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 16, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff—through an attorney—filed a complaint alleging illegal recording Penal Code and FEHA claims.  Her attorney withdrew from the case, and the defense filed an

Intervenors, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Intervenor Residential Group Were Not Successful For CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery Purposes Because They Lost Their Pragmatic Goal Of Stopping A Development Project

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

The Trial Judge’s Call On Which Side Achieved Its Litigation Objection Was Correct.             On June 24, 2020, we posted on Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, Case Nos. B291111/BS168564 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020), unpublished at the time.  We can now report that it was partially published on July

Intervenors, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Prevailing/Successful Party Determination For Purposes Of Costs And Attorney Fees Award Affirmed On Appeal

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

Determination Based On Achieving Litigation Goal, Not On Prevailing On A Higher Percentage Of Issues.             Redondo Beach Waterfront v. City of Redondo Beach, Case No. B291111 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020) (unpublished), involved renovation of an existing 150,000 square foot building and a new 400,000 square foot waterfront development in the

Reasonableness Of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statute: $9,200 Attorney’s Fees Award In Venue Transfer Situation Sustained On Appeal

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

Reason Was That Both A Surrogacy Agreement Venue Provision And Factual Circumstances Showed The Matter Needed To Be Resolved In Transferee Venue.             In Omega Family Global, Inc. v. Doe, Case No. D075358 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 17, 2020) (unpublished), defendants were granted a venue transfer motion from San Diego to Riverside where a

Family Law, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Intermediate Appellate Courts Issue Several Family Law Or Neighborhood Disputes Opinions Where Fee Requests Were Granted Or Denied In Unpublished Decisions—Abuse Of Discretion Standard Guided All Of Them.

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

1.         Marriage of Harcke, Case No. B288727 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 16, 2020) (unpublished).             In this case, father was sanctioned for $15,400 in attorney’s fees for failure to be cooperative in settlement negotiations under Family Code section 271.   That was no abuse of discretion given that he “out of hand” and

Sanctions, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Prevailing CPRA Petitioner Properly Denied Fees Under Mandatory Fee-Shifting Statute And Under Code Civ. Proc. Section 128.5 Based On Her Self-Represented Status

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Prevailing Petitioner Was Not Represented By Legal Counsel And Did Not Incur Or Become Liable For Attorney Fees.             In Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sytem, Case No. A158282 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 29, 2020) (unpublished), the trial court denied prevailing CPRA (California Public Records Act) petitioner’s requests for attorney’s fees, under Gov.

Costs, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Governmental Entity Could Not Charge Redaction Expenses As “Data Extraction” Costs Under The Public Records Act

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Two Provisions Had To Be Harmonized To Get To The Holding.             In National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward, Case No. S252445 (Cal. Supreme Court May 28, 2020) (published), the California Supreme Court decided that City was not allowed to charge a Public Records Act requestor the expenses of redacting statutorily-exempt information because those

Scroll to Top