Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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             In County of Napa v. Silver, Case No. A146586 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 20, 2019) (unpublished), Napa County won a public nuisance abatement action against appellants involving the European grapevine moth and […]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             The 1/2 DCA in two opinions, Pitre v. Lam and Wong, Case No. A151061 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 7, 2019) (unpublished) and Randt v. Lam,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 Aug. 5, 2019) (unpublished), City of South Lake Tahoe filed a petition seeking appointment of a receiver against a motel owner based on allegations that he had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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: County’s Adherence To Privileges And Exemptions Until Last Moment Did Not Prevent California Public Records Act Petitioner From Receiving Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Petitioner Was A Catalyst For Production Of Requested Documents.             California Public Records Act has a fee-shifting statute in favor of a prevailing party petitioner under Government Code section 6259(d), one which is liberally construed in order to encourage governmental entities to produce documents to the public except for ones which fall under certain restrictions/exemptions. 

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Governmental District Properly Awarded $8,160 In Discretionary Attorney’s Fees Against Plaintiff Losing Brown Act Challenge

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Wanted Agenda Detail Not Required Under The Brown Act.             In Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist., Case No. C086760 (3d Dist. July 15, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff’s Brown Act challenge against the District was blown out when the lower court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend.  The Brown Act has a discretionary fee-shifting

Civil Rights, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Reverses And Remands Close To $1 Million Attorney’s Fees Award Under EAJA Against the Government

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Problem Was That District Judge Did Not Have Benefit Of Goodyear Tire Decision.             In Lu v. United States of America, Case Nos. 17-55040/17-55087 (9th Cir. April 17, 2019) (published), the federal court of appeals had to grapple with a long-running case involving tort claims involving a Chinese national and asylum officer where substantial compensatory

Special Fee Shifting Statute: California’s Brown Act Attorney’s Costs/Award To Prevailing Party Reversed Because It Was Based On Void Order

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Unlike Other Fee Areas, Brown Act Fee Award Must Specifically Set Forth Predicate Findings.             We learn something just about every day by blogging. California’s Brown Act—designed to promote governmental transparency through opening meeting protections—does have a fee-shifting clause in Government Code section 549605.5, which allows an award of fees and costs where defendant has

Lodestar, Multiplier, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Taxpayer Properly Awarded Fee Of $116,647.47 For Prevailing In Political Reform Act Action

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

60% Total Positive Multiplier And Lodestar Awards Were No Abuse Of Discretion.             California’s Political Reform Act, codified at Government Code sections 81000 et seq., prohibits a public employee from influencing a governmental decision in which he/she has a financial interest.  There are liability provisions which allow a prosecutor or taxpayer to challenge the particular

Scroll to Top