Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appealability, Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Second District Affirms $67,458.07 Attorneys’ Fees Awarded To Prevailing Defendant On Remand

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Gravamen of Plaintiffs’ Action Was Based On Governing CC&Rs Which Made Defendant Prevailing Party For Attorneys’ Fees Purposes When She Defeated The Action Through Demurrers And Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Dismissal.             We first discussed our next case – Durack v. Wang, Case No. B293597 (2d Dist., Div. 7 November 18, 2019) (unpublished) – in a […]

Costs, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Venue Transfer Order—Under Penalty Of Dismissal—Ran From Service Of Minute Order, With Plaintiff’s Noncompliance Leading To A Reversal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Failure To Dismiss Case Lead To A Real Reversal Of Fortune!            In Southwestern Law School v. Benson, Case No. BV032895 (L.A. County Superior Ct. App. Div. Oct. 25, 2019, posted Nov. 14, 2019) (published), a very narrow issue was presented on appeal, with dire consequences for the plaintiff.  The issue was whether a plaintiff

Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Berkeley Municipal Ordinance “Reasonable Fee” Requirement Disposed Of Winning Cross-Appellant’s Fee Challenge

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

CCP § 998 Does Not Expand Fee Allowance, But Only Expands Group Of Litigants Treated As Prevailing Parties.             Glaser v. Mitchel, Case No. A155815 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 7, 2019) (unpublished) was a neighborhood dispute over sunlight/tree disputes—something we have posted on many times before with respect to various California venues.  There was

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Civil Code Section 3334, A Statute Allowing For Costs Recovery For Wrongful Occupation Of Real Property Does Not Encompass Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Companion Post To Our Post Describing A Reversal Of Fees Based On Civil Code Section 1717.             We recently posted on McAlister Investments, Inc. v. Thomas, Case No. G056330 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 30, 2019) (unpublished), where our Santa Ana local court reversed an attorney’s fees award after concluding a declaratory relief action did

Allocation, Homeowner Associations, Interest, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Standard of Review: Plaintiff Owner/Developer’s Award Of $1,673,691 In Damages and Entire Fee Request Upheld On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Interest, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

Defendant HOA’s Breach Of Owner/Developer’s Valid Contractual Access Rights Was The Common Core Involved In The Causes Of Action, So Apportionment Of Fees Not Required.             In Millennium-Diamond Road Partners v. Diamond Bar etc., Case No. B285539 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2019) (unpublished), Owner/Developer Millennium sued HOA when it revoked Millennium’s access

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Napa County Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees And Costs In Public Nuisance Abatement Action

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Napa County Code Section Allowed For Prevailing Party Fees And Government Code Section 25845(b) Allowed For County’s Recoupment Of Expert Fees.             In County of Napa v. Silver, Case No. A146586 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 20, 2019) (unpublished), Napa County won a public nuisance abatement action against appellants involving the European grapevine moth and

Landlord/Tenant, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statute: In Two Related Opinions, 1/2 DCA Explores San Francisco Eviction Ordinance Fee-Shifting Provision, Determining Owners Were Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees Against Two Tenants

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

In One Case, Section 998 Offer Was Not Beat Even Though Two Plaintiff Tenants Did Get Positive Damages Under The San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization And Arbitration Ordinance.             The 1/2 DCA in two opinions, Pitre v. Lam and Wong, Case No. A151061 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 7, 2019) (unpublished) and Randt v. Lam,

Prevailing Party, Sanctions, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Motel Owner And City Properly Found To Not Have Prevailed For Purposes Of Substandard Building Fee-Shifting Statute

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

Also, Motel Owner Properly Hit With Opposition Fees For Denied CCP § 128.5 Motion.             In City of South Lake Tahoe v. Cobrae, Case No. C083568 (3d Dist. Aug. 5, 2019) (unpublished), City of South Lake Tahoe filed a petition seeking appointment of a receiver against a motel owner based on allegations that he had

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $22,139.75 Fee Award To State Parks Under CCP § 1038 Reversed On Appeal Because Plaintiff’s Suit Did Not Lack Reasonable Cause

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Case Law Was Not Clear Cut That A Stairway Was A Trail For Governmental Trail Immunity.             This next case involved a plaintiff injuring herself on a state park stairway near the Bootjack Trial in Mt. Tamalpais State Park (which happens to be situated in Marin County, a Bay Area county).  She sued the State

Reasonableness Of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Prevailing Defendant In Civil Harassment Proceeding Properly Awarded $10,000 In Fees And $1,100 In Costs

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

Trial Court’s Conclusion That $181,013.63 Request Was Unreasonable/Inflated Was Affirmed On Appeal.             Folks, we can reiterate that you need to make opening fee requests which are reasonable and bear some semblance of reality to the case involved, subject to aggressive tactics by the other side or complexity/longevity of the case which usually will justify

Scroll to Top