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 July 17, 2017 unpublished; published on Aug. 15, 2017), plaintiff asked Calaveras County to pay him over $150,000 to reimburse for work pursuant to an oral contract.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

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

  Federal Circuit So Decides Despite Split In Authority.       In Parrott v. Shulkin, Case No. 2016-1450 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2017) (precedential), the Federal Circuit dealt with what Consumer Price Index (CPI)—national or local—should govern an upward adjustment of the $125 per hour fee award cap under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),

  Default Judgment Principles Did Not Apply To Fee Recovery.       In Eftekhari v. Ford, Case No. B271555 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 14, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff won $8,125 in attorney’s fees against defendant in a civil harassment proceeding based on a fee-shifting statute. On appeal, defendant argued the trial judge lacked authority to award