Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished) about fee shifting statutes under the Political Reform Act (PRA) and Government Claims Act (GCA), not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

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

Scroll to Top