Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Statute:  L.A. Times Improperly Denied Private Attorney General Fees Against Officers/Police Officer Union And Properly Granted Fees Under Public Record Act As Against City Of Pasadena

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

Trial Court’s Award Of $45,472 To Times Under PRA Affirmed On Appeal, With Times Now Getting To Seek Reasonable Fees Against Officers/Police Union Under CCP § 1021.5.             Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, Case No. B275566 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 12, 2018) (published) was a situation where the L.A. Times brought

Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Doctor Who Successfully Obtained Grant Of Application Relating To An Office Being A Medi-Cal “Established Place Of Business” Improperly Denied Fee Recovery Under CCP § 1028.5

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Result Was A Reversal And Grant Of $7,500 In Maximum Allowable Fees Under § 1028.5.             CCP § 1028.5 is one of those special California fee-shifting statutes, which in this instance provides that a small business or licensee prevailing in an action against a statute regulatory agency can recover a maximum attorney’s fees award of

Allocation, Equity, Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Prevailing School District Properly Awarded $113,216 In Attorney’s Fees Under Public Contract Code Section 7107

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Equity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Public Prompt Payment Statute Allows For Recovery Of Fees By Prevailing Party.             Public Contract Code section 7107 allows the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees and costs in a suit alleging that a public entity or contractor wrongfully withheld retention payments required to be distributed in a timely manner.  This fee statute is bilateral

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 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

Scroll to Top