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 […]

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

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 July 17, 2017 unpublished; published on Aug. 15, 2017), plaintiff asked Calaveras County to pay him over $150,000 to reimburse for work pursuant to an oral contract.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

Denial Of Fee Recovery Was Erroneous Because Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fee Under “Catalyst Theory."               “Litigation under the Public Records Act (PRA) (Gov. Code,1 § 6250 et seq.) is one of the rare instances where a losing party may still be deemed a prevailing party entitled to an attorney fee award. This is

  Split Opinion On This Issue.       In Irvine Unified School Dist. v. K.G., No. 14-56457 (9th Cir. April 13, 2017) (published), the Ninth Circuit, in a split decision, decided that it was unlikely that a student in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) case should be entitled to fees for litigation after high