Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 July 15, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff’s Brown Act challenge against the District was blown out when the lower court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend.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

Homeowner Associations, Section 1717, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Homeowner Plaintiffs In A Common Interest Development Dispute Over Assessment Liens Must Pay Prevailing Party Defendants $125,796.50 In Attorney Fees

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Summary Judgment Hinged On Voting Rights Language In The Covenants Of The Development             The Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code section 4000 et seq.) governs the creation and operation of common interest developments, and requires such developments to be managed by a homeowners association, which homeowners are generally mandated to join.             In Bertoli v.

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Lower Court Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Doctor In Staff Privilege Suspension/Termination Case Against Hospital Because Hospital’s Defense Was Not Completely Frivolous In Nature

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Business and Professions Code Section 809.9 Was The Fee Shifting Statute.             In Economy v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals, Case Nos. A150211 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 February 4, 2019) (published), defendants hospital were found to have improperly suspended/terminated a physician without a proper hearing under Business and Professions Code section 809 et seq,

Deadlines, Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Attorney Asking For Mandatory Relief Stemming From A Failure To File Default Set Aside Motion Before Default Judgment Prove-Up Properly Had To Reimburse Other Side For $10,000 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fact That Discretionary Relief Also Included, Which Does Not Allow For Fee Shifting, Did Not Change The Result.             In Fink v. Cost U Less Cars, Inc., Case No. C085383 (3d Dist. Jan. 29, 2019) (unpublished), attorney was ordered to pay $10,000 in attorney’s fees and costs for the lower court’s grant of a mandatory

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statute: State False Claims Act Fee-Shifting Statute Applies To Defendant Prevailing On Just The False Claim Act Claims Rather Than The Action As A Whole

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

This Result Fosters Deterring Actions Without Foundation Brought By Government Against Private Entities/Persons.            The First District, Division 5, in John Russo Industrial Sheetmetal, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Airports, Case No. A151729 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 26, 2018) (published), dealt with a situation where a plaintiff contracted with the L.A.

Scroll to Top