Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

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.

Scroll to Top