Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Trial Judge Correctly Denied $94,934 Fee Request To Prevailing Party Under Civil Harassment Fee-Shifting Statute

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

Excessiveness Of Request Justified Entire Denial Of Fees Motion Demand.             If you request an excessive fee award, you can be slammed entirely under a lot of California fee-shifting statutes. One of the big cases is Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 970 (2010) [our Leading Case No. 13], where a FEHA request […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 2/5 DCA Concludes That Catchall Language In Good Faith Improver Fee-Shifting Statute Allowed Trial Judge To Award Fees Againste An Unsuccessful Party

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Split In Opinion On The Fee Entitlement Conclusion, With Dissenting Justice Concluding The Fee Award Was Not Equitable And Resulted In A Windfall.             McCuien v. Davis, Case No. B276979 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 5, 2018) (unpublished) dealt with an appeal of a lower court’s award of $105,665 in fees under a good faith

Appealability, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Law Of The Case Did Not Prevent Lower Court From Considering Alternative Ground For Fee Entitlement Ignored Previously In Prior Appellate Decision

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Fee Recovery Under Government Code Section 800(a) Limited To $7,500 Per Case, No Matter How Many Parties Or Whether Multiple Issues Were Involved.             Fratus v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. A153424 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2018) (unpublished) is a situation where the appellate court reversed the denial of attorney’s fees

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Government Entity Is Entitled To Actual Expenditures To Produce A Copy Of Police Body Camera Video Recordings, Including Costs Of Extracting Exempt Material With The Aid Of Computer Programming

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Costs Are Allowed Under Government Code Section 6253.9(b)(2).             The First District, Division 3, in National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter v. City of Hayward, Case No. A149328 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 28, 2018) (published), decided that a City’s actual expenditures to produce a copy of police body camera video recordings, including

Insurance, Lodestar, Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes, Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees: Third Circuit Upholds District Court’s Decision Denying Entire Almost $950K Fees And Costs Request To Successful Plaintiff

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Amount Requested Under Bad Faith Statute Was “Outrageously Excessive” Allowing District Court To Deny The Request Altogether As Thoroughly Explained In Its “Well-Reasoned One-Hundred-Page Opinion”             Ouch! Talk about learning a lesson the hard way! In a precedential opinion for a case decided by Justices Greenaway, Jr., Restrepo, and Bibas, and authored by Justice Greenaway, Jr.,

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statute: San Benito Water District Regulation Fee-Shifting Provision Supported $82,762 Fee Award After Water District Obtained An Injunction Against Water Customer Such That Delinquent Account Was Paid

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Myriad of Arguments, Including Prevailing Party Determination, Were Rejected On Appeal.             This one shows how a delinquent water bill for $25,000 can mushroom into additional fee exposure of $82,762 when there is a local fee-shifting ordinance under which a local water district prevails.             What occurred in San Benito County Water Dist. v. McAlpine,

SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendants Obtaining Dismissal of Civil Harassment Petition Entitled To Fee Recovery, But Trial Court Correctly Ruled Defendants Not Entitled To SLAPP Relief Such That Other Fee Work Could Not Be Recovered

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Both Sides Appealed, But Trial Court’s Fee Recovery Orders Were Affirmed.             In Geiser v. Kuhns, Case No. B279738 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 30, 2018) (unpublished), defendants were awarded $40,000 in attorney’s fees based on defeating plaintiff’s civil harassment action but were denied additional fees based on the defense SLAPP motions because the lower

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

Scroll to Top