Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 Oct. 21, 2016) (unpublished) involved a mixed contract/tort multiple-claimed suit against the Oakdale Irrigation District, premised primarily on the claim that OID took two disputed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     In Nelson v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069118 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 17, 2016) (unpublished), a plaintiff sought fees under the California Public Records Act, Gov.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

In The News . . . . Ninth Circuit Reverses Sanctions Awards Against Attorney For Making Faces In Courtroom And No Attorney’s Fees Assessed Against The Wolfe Trust In Led Zepplin Copyright Infringement Case

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

  Making Faces In Courtroom, Which Were Found Not To Be Made In Bad Faith, Was Not Sanctionable.       Alice S. Kandell, photographer.  May 1971.  Library of Congress.      The Ninth Circuit, in Hernandez (Boothe) v. City of Vancouver, No. 13-35131 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016) (unpublished), reviewed a $145,765.43 sanctions award against a

Intellectual Property: SCOTUS Clarifies Factors For Discretion In Awarding Fees Under Copyright Act’s Fee-Shifting Statute

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  17 U.S.C. § 505 Was At Issue—Objective Reasonableness Plus Other Factors Should Be Weighed.     Justice Kagan, for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, clarified the factors to be weighed for purposes of discretionarily awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party under 17 U.S.C. § 505, the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting statute.     In Kirtsaeng dba

Sanctions/Special Fee Shifting Statute: 4/1 DCA Clarifies Scope Of “Revived” Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 Sanctions Statute

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Court Reverses Denial Of Section 128.5 Sanctions, But Affirms Fee Recovery To Plaintiff Under California Public Records Act.     San Diegans For Open Government v. City of San Diego, Case No. D068421 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 7, 2016) (published) is a key decision on the timing, applicability, and scope of Code of

Scroll to Top