Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Personal Injury Plaintiff’s Request For $27,667.50 In Costs For Medical Witness Expenses Properly Stricken

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reason Was That, Under CCP § 1141.21, Plaintiff Obtained A Jury Trial Verdict In A De Novo Trial Which Was Under A Prior Judicial Arbitration Award.             For unlimited cases where damages are likely not to exceed $50,000, the Legislature has specified a mandatory judicial arbitration process.  Any party may request a trial de novo […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Personal Injury Plaintiff’s Request For $27,667.50 In Costs For Medical Witness Expenses Properly Stricken

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reason Was That, Under CCP § 1141.21, Plaintiff Obtained A Jury Trial Verdict In A De Novo Trial Which Was Under A Prior Judicial Arbitration Award.             For unlimited cases where damages are likely not to exceed $50,000, the Legislature has specified a mandatory judicial arbitration process.  Any party may request a trial de novo

Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Baker Botts’ Bankruptcy Rationale Did Not Apply To Compensation Of Fee-Application And Fee-Litigation Work Under The Longshore And Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$52,340 Fee Award Recommendations By Appellate Commissioner Are Adopted.             When it comes to awarding fees for appellate work, the Ninth Circuit refers the matters to the Appellate Commissioner under Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.9.  These Commissioners develop an expertise in resolving fee-application and fee-litigation work.             In Vortex Marine Construction v. Grimm, No. 15-72258 (9th

Costs, Discovery, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Multi-Million Dollar Costs, Discovery Violation Sanctions, And Fee Recoveries Reversed And Remanded Based On Reversals And Necessity To Revisit Fee Entitlement Bases

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

             Moonlight Fire.  2007.  Wikipedia.  Author:  kkmontandon.                  Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, Case Nos. C074879/C076008 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017) (fully published; first posted on Dec. 6, 2017 with costs/fee discussions not published) is a case arising from the 2007

Costs, Discovery, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Multi-Million Dollar Costs, Discovery Violation Sanctions, And Fee Recoveries Reversed And Remanded Based On Reversals And Necessity To Revisit Fee Entitlement Bases

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

            Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, Case Nos. C074879/C076008 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017) (fully published; first posted on Dec. 6, 2017 with costs/fee discussions not published) is a case arising from the 2007 Moonlight Fires which burned 65,000 acres in Plumas County.  Plaintiffs, mainly governmental agencies or affiliates, sought to recover

Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Two Public Employees Properly Awarded Fees Under Government Code Section 996.4 And Private Attorney General Statute

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

However, Fee Multiplier Not Allowed Under Section 996.4 And Plaintiffs Did Well To Cross-Appeal Given That Costs To Prosecute 996.4 Recovery Not Allowable Under 996.4, But Was Allowable Under CCP § 1021.5.             This next case counsels that a protective cross-appeal can be a true salvation.  It was for the successful plaintiffs in Hosac v.

Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Ninth Circuit, In Fractured Opinion, Determines First Amendment Group Entitled To FOIA Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Majority Determines A Causative Or Catalyst Test Applies, While Another Concurring Circuit Judge Determines No Causal Nexus Required.             The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in First Amendment Coalition v. Dept. of Justice, No. 15-15117 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2017) (published) is an interesting opinion on what level of causation or nature of the catalyst theory allows

Deadlines/Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Appellate Court Determines That Prevailing Plaintiffs In County Code Compliance Dispute Were Wrongfully Denied Fee Recovery Under Government Code Section 800

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lower Court Also Erred In Ruling Fees Motion Was Untimely Filed.             In Fratus v. Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation and Development, Case No. A147841 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff residential owners successfully obtained an administrative mandate writ against County agency based on allegations of code noncompliance.  However, the trial

Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Where Government Only Won 1% Of Its Demand Under False Claims Act, Defendant Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Equal Access To Justice Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Shifting Statute Was Plain, With Circumstances Requiring Reversal Of Fee Denial As To Contractor             The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has a mandatory fee-shifting provision that allows a court to award fees to a non-prevailing defendant where the government’s demand for damages in a case is “substantially in excess of the judgment

Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  $65,000 CCP § 1038 Fee Sanctions Award Against Plaintiff Losing To Calaveras County Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Both Lack Of Objective And Subjective Good Faith Shown Below.             In Ponte v. County of Calaveras, Case No. C079180 (3d Dist. July 17, 2017 unpublished; published on Aug. 15, 2017), plaintiff asked Calaveras County to pay him over $150,000 to reimburse for work pursuant to an oral contract.  The lower court eventually granted summary

Scroll to Top