Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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      The Ninth Circuit, in Hernandez (Boothe) v. City of Vancouver, No. 13-35131 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016) (unpublished), reviewed a $145,765.43 sanctions award against a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

Appealability/POOF!/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Reversal Of Penal Code Section 496(c) Verdict Means $1.15 Million Fee And Costs Award Went POOF!

Cases: Appealability, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Postjudgment Fees Also Reversed, But Expert Witness Fees Sustained Based On Failure To Separate Appeal The Postjudgment Award.     In Kayne v. Mense, Case No. B254975 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 25, 2016) (unpublished), defendants were found to have breached a fiduciary duty to plaintiff (giving rise to compensatory and punitive damages) and found

Bankruptcy/Section 1717/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Debtor’s Fees In Nondischargeability Bankruptcy Action Were Not Recoverable Under California Civil Code Section 1717 Or ERISA Discretionary Fee-Shifting Statute

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fee Activities Were Not Within the Purview Of Either Statute.     Debtor/employer eventually “defensed” a bankruptcy nondischargeability action brought by certain employees arguing employer was an ERISA fiduciary for purposes of the “fiduciary” exception to bankruptcy discharge, a determination found to not legally be sustainable under a prior Ninth Circuit opinion (meaning employer was

Special Fee Statute Update: United Rigger Decision Accepted For Review By California Supreme Court

Cases: Construction, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Interpretation of Retention Prompt Payment Statute At Issue.      On December 5 and 18, we posted on the 2/1 DCA’s United Rigger decision, which among other things split company with another sister intermediate appellate court on the interpretation of the retention prompt payment statute and accordingly reversed a $150,000 fee award to the then

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Although Trial Judge Correctly Denied CPRA Petition, He Erroneously Awarded Costs To San Diego District Attorney

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Reason Was That D.A. Conceded Petition Was Not Frivolous At The Time Costs Incurred By D.A.      Admissions or concessions in court papers get great weight, no less so on appeal.      In Harrison v. San Diego County, The District Attorney, Case No. D068603 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 18, 2016 unpublished), petitioner requested

Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statute: IDEA Fee Award Of $7,780 Rather Than Requested $66,420 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Rejected Settlement Did Not Justify Post-Settlement Fees, Hourly Rate Reduction Justified, and Prior Consultant Determination Prevented Paralegal Fee Award.      Under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), attorney’s fees are awardable to prevailing plaintiffs, generally the parents of a child with a disability, in the discretion of the district court. But there

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Civil Code Section 3334(a), Allowing For Recovery Of Certain Costs In Encroachment Actions, Does Not Provide Entitlement For Recovery Of Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Statute Did Not Talk About Fees.      Civil Code section 3334, subdivision (a) provides, in part: “The detriment caused by the wrongful occupation of real property . . . is deemed to include the value of the use of the property for the time of that wrongful occupation . . . and the costs,

Scroll to Top