Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Unlicensed Contractors: $4 Million Fee Award Evaporates On Appeal Because Penal Code Section 496(B) Does Not Encompass Fraudulent Diversion Of Business Funds

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Also, CCP § 1029.8 Did Not Apply, Because Defendants Were Neither Unlicensed Contractors Nor Broker-Dealers.             Appellate practice can result in a reversal of fortunes.  In Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, Case No. B277750 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 3, 2020) (lead case, published), a $4 million-plus fee award based upon Penal Code section 496(b) […]

Homeowner Associations, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Error In Lower Court’s Narrow Interpretation Of Civil Code Section 5975(c) Led To Reversal Of Attorney Fees Denial To Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Gravamen Of Plaintiff’s Complaint Was On Enforceability Of The Governing Documents.             In Alexander v. Singletary, Case No. D075943 (4th Dist., Div. 1 January 21, 2020) (unpublished), one of five homeowners in a common interest development unsuccessfully sought judicial declaration that the governing documents were unenforceable as to him, and for partition from the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Elder Losing Restraining Order Against Defendant Properly Subject To Fee Exposure

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Welfare And Institutions Code Section 15657.03(t) Did Allow For Fee Shifting.             In Baca v. Sukert, Case No. D074512 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 24, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff elder, after winning a fleeting TRO which was dismissed, lost an elder abuse restraining order against defendant property manager in a longstanding feud with the place she

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Misinterpretation Of Civil Code § 8460 Cost Pro Per Plaintiff His Mechanics’ Lien Claim And An Award Of Attorney Fees To Prevailing Defendant

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Pro Per Plaintiff Timely Filed Action After Recording Mechanics’ Lien, But Sought To Recover Compensation Owed For His Work Rather Than The Sale Of The Property Subject To The Lien And Application Of The Sale Proceeds To Pay The Amount Secured By The Lien.             In Settimi v. Hart, Case No. F079181 (5th Dist.,

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: 2/8 DCA Follows Earlier 2/1 DCA Opinion In Recognizing That Successful Requesting Party/Intervenor Was Entitled To Fees In A California Public Records Act Proceeding And A Reverse-CPRA Action

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

End Result Was A San Diego Newspaper Garnered Almost $149,000 In Attorney’s Fees After The Judgment Modified To Allow For Additional Reply Brief Work.            In City of Los Angeles v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. B272169 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 19, 2019) (published), a San Diego newspaper which successfully intervened

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

Scroll to Top