Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Section 1717, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendants Winning Verbal Contract Restaurant Purchase Dispute Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  However, Defense Was Entitled To Open Book Account Fees Under Civil Code Section 1717.5.     c1880.  Library of Congress.      Defendants, the putative buyers of a restaurant business known as Bosco’s Bones & Brew in Sunol, CA, were sued by plaintiffs/putative sellers in Alevamare, Inc. v. Truong, Case A144337 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Oct. […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $7,700 Properly Awarded As Sanctions Against Attorney Failing To Stipulate To Transfer Of Venue

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  CCP § 396b(b) Is The Venue “Sanctions” Statute, With Sanctions Properly Levied On Subsequent Attorney Other Than The One Originally Representing Client When Complaint Was Filed.     June 29, 1910.  L.M. Glackens, artist.  Library of Congress.      Code of Civil Procedure section 396b(b) does allow a trial judge discretion to award attorney’s fees against

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 1/1 DCA Provides First Interpretation Of Fee Recovery To Agent Of Written Advance Care Directive Patient Under Health And Safety Code Section 4771(a)

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Reviewing Court Interprets “Without Any Reasonable Cause” Language, Reversing Fee Denial To Wife As A Matter Of Law And Remanding For A Determination Of Amount Of Statutory Fees Awardable To Her.     The First District, Division 1 was obviously troubled by the egregious facts at issue in Humboldt County Adult Protective Services v. Superior

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiffs Losing Water Irrigation District Multiple-Claimed Dispute Avoids Any Fee Recovery Under CCP § 1038, Water Code § 23954, And Probate Trust Law

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Ill-Defined Planning/Discretionary Immunity Distinction And Factual Finding Of No Bad Faith Sealed The Fee Denial On Appeal.      Agee v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist., Case No. F070632 (5th Dist. Oct. 21, 2016) (unpublished) involved a mixed contract/tort multiple-claimed suit against the Oakdale Irrigation District, premised primarily on the claim that OID took two disputed parcels

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: District Judge Properly Denies California Public Records Act Fees Against Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissing Claim In Short Order

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  “Clearly Frivolous” Means Without Any Merit Or Prosecuted For Improper Motive.     The Ninth Circuit, in M.D. v. Newport-Mesa Unified School Dist., Case Nos. 14-56443/14-56459 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2016) (published), affirmed a district judge’s denial of an attorney’s fees request against a plaintiff prosecuting a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request where plaintiff

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Mootness Of Dispute And Lack Of Document Withholding Improperly Led To Denial Of Fee Request Under California Public Records Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  However, Police Department CPRA Policies May Be Fertile Grounds For Litigation.     In Nelson v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069118 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 17, 2016) (unpublished), a plaintiff sought fees under the California Public Records Act, Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq., as the prevailing party in a writ proceeding

Special Fee Shifting Statute: EAJA Plaintiff Winning Significant Procedural Win, Even Though Remand Without Vacatur, Entitled To A “Relook” On Fee Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Substantial Justification Issue By Government Left To Resolve On Remand.     The Ninth Circuit, in Wood v. Burwell, No. 14-15356 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2016) (published) reversed and remanded a district judge’s denial of attorney’s fees to a prevailing class plaintiff under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).  Plaintiff represented class members who

Lodestar/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Remands FOIA Fee Award For A “Re-Do” Given That District Court Relied On Stale Cases On Prevailing Hourly Rate For Winning Plaintiffs

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Majority Found Appeal Notice Encompassed Fee Award, But Dissent Did Not Agree And Found Plaintiffs Did Not Provide Hourly Rate Evidence In The Right Time Period And For FOIA Cases.      Hiken v. Department of Defense, No. 13-17073 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2016) (published) is a situation where magistrates, district judges, and the Ninth

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Determines That EAJA Fee-Shifting Substantial Justification Determination Depends On Governmental Position As A Whole And Determines That Bad Faith Conduct Can Be Apportioned Out For Purposes Of Fee Entitlement

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

    $419,987.36 Fee Award/$34,768.71 Costs Award Gets Remanded For Another Look.        In Ibrahim v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Nos. 14-16161/14-17272 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2016) (published), a plaintiff won a week-long bench trial in which the district judge determined that he was improperly placed on a terrorist/No-Fly List. Plaintiff then moved

Scroll to Top