Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 of Conservation and Development, Case No. A147841 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff residential owners successfully obtained an administrative mandate writ against County agency based on allegations of code noncompliance.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

Special Fee Shifting Statute:  City’s Production Of Photographs And Emails After Court-Ordered Depositions In California Public Records Act Case Merited Fee Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Prevailing Party/Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Federal False Claims Act Does Allow Prevailing Defendant To Recover Attorney’s Fees For A Subject Matter Jurisdiction Win

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

    Merits Win Not Required, Agreeing With Two Other Decisions As Far As Breadth Of False Claims Act Prevailing Party Definitional Scope.             Dr. Ralph's Pills.  Library of Congress.             In Amphastar Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA, Nos. 14-56382/15-56204 (9th Cir. May 11, 2017) (published), the defense won a

Equity, Sanctions, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Allocation:  Unpublished Decisions In Last Few Days Address Multiple Fee Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

    Equity—Gilotti v. Stewart, Case No. C075611 (3d Dist. April 26, 2017) (Unpublished):  Section 998 Offer, Typo Notwithstanding Valid, and Attorney’s Self Interest Disqualified Fee Recovery.                   In this construction defect lawsuit, plaintiff was ordered to pay a prevailing grading contractor expert fees under CCP § 998, even though the offer said $49,999

Scroll to Top