Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 B272381/B281923 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 17, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where conservation authority sued an oil company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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: SCOTUS Decides That Mandatory Victims Restitution Act Of 1996 Does Not Allow For Reimbursement Of Legal, Accounting, And Consulting Fees Related To Private Investigations Of Alleged “Fraudsters” In Non-Criminal Proceedin

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$5 Million In Legal, Accounting, And Consulting Fees Relating To Private Fraud Investigation In Bankruptcy Proceedings Not Recoverable Under The Act.            In Lagos v. United States, No. 16-1519 (U.S. Sup. Ct. May 29, 2018), petitioner was convicted of using a company he controlled to defraud a lender of tens of millions of dollars. After the

Costs, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Superior Court Properly Awarded General CCP § 1032 Prevailing Party Dismissal Routine Costs Totaling $1,010 In Dismissed, Transferred Small Claims Action

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appellant Argued Small Claims Special Statutory Prohibition Applied, But It Did Not.             We once in a long while get a case involving a small claims matter, which the next case happens to be. These matters, in the fees and costs area, usually focus on whether general CCP routine costs provisions prevail or whether special

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding $95,000 in Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiff Under CCP 1021.4, Discretionary Fee-Shifting Provision Where Civil Cases Involves Defendant’s Felony Offense(s).

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Requested $1.3 Million In Fees, But Trial Court Found Lack Of Success Required Steep Discount And No 1.75 Positive Multiplier Justified Where Case Was Not Novel/Was Not That Difficult.             Defendant was found liable on several (4) tort counts for sexually abusing his niece when she was between 8-10 (the plaintiff). Before trial, the

Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ten-Day Settlement Offer Under IDEA Not Specifying Whether School District Would Pay Disabled Student’s Pre-Offer Attorney’s Fees And Costs Justified Parent In Rejecting Offer

Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Result Is That Matter Is Remanded So Post-Offer Reasonable Fees Can Be Awarded; Both Majority and Concurring Opinions Suggest School Districts Need To Make Their Offers Clear In Nature.             The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) is a boutique practice involving a federal statute under which parents and school districts can resolve disputes over

Deadlines, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Although Timely Filed, Motion For Defense Costs Under CCP § 1038 Properly Awarded To Defendant California Highway Patrol Winning Summary Judgment Motion

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Section 1038 Deadlines Are Not Jurisdictional In Nature.             Code of Civil Procedure section 1038 allows an award of defense costs to a public entity that prevails on a frivolous lawsuit by means of a dispositive motion (such as a motion for summary judgment) if the public entity so moves “before the discharge of the

Special Fee Shifting Statute:  District Judge Can Award Fees And Costs Against Party If Its Decision To Remove Was Objectively Unreasonable

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

That Was So In This Case Because Fraudulent Joinder Argument Lacked Merit Under The Circumstances.             Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a district judge has discretion to award costs and attorney’s fees against a party if the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal, in the absence of unusual circumstances.             The

Scroll to Top