Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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      In Harrison v. San Diego County, The District Attorney, Case No. D068603 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 18, 2016 unpublished), petitioner requested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,

Sanctions/Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Sometimes One’s Choice Of A Fee Entitlement Basis Can Matter

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Here, Prevailing Party Sought CCP § 128.5 Sanctions, Such That Fee Request Proper In Responding Papers—No Notice Of Motion Under Other Provisions Required.      Meraz v. Coleman, Case No. B262725 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 3, 2016) (unpublished) illustrates that some successful fee awards may well depend upon the manner in which the fee

News . . . . LA County Pays Attorneys $59 Million In Fees/Costs In 2014-2015 And Two District Judges Assess “Exceptional” Patent Fee-Shifting Awards Against Unsuccessful Patent Plaintiffs

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

  L.A. County Attorney Payment Statistics Are Out For 2014-2015.     For 2014-2015, Los Angeles County paid $59 million for attorney’s fees and costs to both in-house and outside counsel, a 7% increase from the prior year.  For matters going to trial, the County won 64% of the time, although many cases were settled.  The

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Obtaining Postlitigation Production Of Documents Under California Public Records Act Was Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $260,608 Fee Award Affirmed Despite Narrow Earlier Loss On Writ Petition.      California’s Public Record Act (CPRA), Government Code section 6259(c), has a fee shifting provision mandating attorney’s fees to be awarded to a prevailing party plaintiff in a CPRA case. (Fees can be awarded against plaintiff and in favor of the public agency

Scroll to Top