Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Costs, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Prevailing Defendant In Civil Harassment Proceeding After Dismissal Of Petition For Restraining Orders Entitled To Claim Attorney’s Fees Through A Cost Memorandum

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Costs Memorandum Or Fee Motion Were Proper Methods To Request Fee Recovery Under CCP § 527.6.             In Tardaguila v. Conley, Case No. B279316 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 29, 2018) (unpublished), prevailing defendant was awarded $8,956.34 in attorney’s fees after plaintiff dismissed her petition for civil harassment restraining orders against defendant. Fees are allowable […]

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fee Award Against Plaintiff Dismissing Domestic Violence Restraining Action Against Defendant, Where Records Were Not Sealed, Was Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Dismissed Her Action, After Initial Successes, Not On The Merits But For Fear Of Her Safety, Such That Fees Were Unwarranted Under The Peculiar Circumstances.             So, who says that appellate jurists are not sometimes convinced by unique circumstances to find that an attorney’s fees award against a litigant should be reversed? Not us,

Allocation, Landlord-Tenant, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Alleged To Be Partner Of Landlord Properly Awarded Fees Of $45,930 Against Tenant, Minus A “Double Dip” Item

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

One Unilateral San Francisco Ordinance Fee-Shifting Provision Did Not Show That Interrelated Fees Spent On Compensable Claims Could Not Be Allowed.             Bienkowski v. Lam, Case No. A151579 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 9, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation where a tenant sued a defendant as the undisclosed partner of landlord, alleging that he was

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Third District, In Writ Proceeding, Determines California Public Records Act Plaintiffs Prevailed, Reversing Determination Otherwise By Lower Court

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Petitioners Did Prevail Because Their Actions Motivated A Water District To Disclose Previously Withheld Records.             Writ relief does not happen often, but plaintiffs seeing that the lower court was against them sought it and were awarded by the Third District in Harrell & Gifford v. Superior Court (Hornbrook Community Services Dist.), Case Nos. C085484/C085606

Special Fee Shifting Statute: LandWatch Opinion, Awarding Administrative Record Preparation Expenses To Agency In CEQA Case, Now Published

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

June 28, 2018 Unpublished Decision Now Published.             In a June 28, 2018 post, we discussed the LandWatch San Luis Obispo Co. v. Cambria Comm. Serv. Dist., Case No. B281823 (2d Dist., Div. 6) which was an unpublished opinion where the appellate court affirmed a costs award to a public agency to prepare an administrative

Special Fee Shifting Statute: California Public Records Act Requester To Prevent Disclosure Of Public Agency Documents Not Entitled To CPRA Fee Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Maybe, Private Attorney General Fees, Maybe ….             The Third District, in National Conference of Black Mayors v. Chico Community Publishing, Inc., Case No. C083956 (3d Dist. July 25, 2018) (published), held that a requester of public records litigating against an officer of a public agency to prevent disclosure of public documents by a public

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Was Not Successful So As To Be Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because He Did Not Achieve His Primary Objective And Did Not Prevail Under “Before And After Test” For A Successful Party

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

Plaintiff Wanted Reinstatement of His Driver’s License, But That Did Not Occur—He Only Got A New DMV Remand Revocation Hearing Based On DUI Charges; He Also Did Not Prevail For A Smaller Fee Award Under Government Code Section 800.             California’s private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, has a multi-prong test

Consumer Statutes, Special Fee Shifting Statute: “The Holder Rule” Governing Commercial Lenders Under Consumer Installment Sale Contract Could Not Be Saddled With Attorney’s Fees Exposure

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Lender Was Responsible For Routine Costs As The Non-Prevailing Party.                 In actuality, this is really a fee-shifting limitation and quasi-legislative limitation on consumer recovery post.             “The Holder Rule, 16 Code of Fed. Regs. § 433.2, was prominent in dictating the result in Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. C080535 (3d Dist.

Private Atty General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: 2/1 DCA’s Reversal Of Settlement Agrmnt/Prop. “A” Ruling Meant 1 Nonprofit Plaintiff’s Fee Award Went POOF! And Fee Award Against Another Nonprofit Plaintiff Reversed/Remanded Under CC§815.7(d)

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

Reason For Civil Code Section 8157(d) Reversal Was That Winning Respondent Needed To Show That Nonprofit’s Action Was Frivolous, Unreasonable, And Groundless Under Christiansburg.              Proposition “A” Protective Assn. v. Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Case Nos. B272381/B281923 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 17, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where conservation authority sued an oil company

Appealability, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Grant Of Attorney’s Fees And Expenses To City Of Indio And Against Property Lender/Receivership Estate In Public Abatement Action Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Two Health And Safety Code Fee Shifting Statutes And Indio Municipal Fee Shifting Provision Did Not Provide Bases For Fees/Expenses Against Lender/Receiver.             In Kaura v. Stabilis Fund III, LLC/City of Indio (as intervenor), Case No. E065751 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 13, 2018) (partially published; appealability discussion not published), lender with a deed of

Scroll to Top