Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Civil Harassment Prevailing Litigant Denied Appellate Fees And Costs In Heated Dispute Between Neighbors Over Defecating Dog

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Above:  The Sweet Prospect Behind Us, 1789.  Library of Congress. Both Parties To Blame, So No Appellate Fees To Prevailing Party Upon Review.      Pets and animals seem to foster a lot of litigation—and, believe me, co-contributors Marc and Mike love their dogs. The next one is for you dog lovers, but the facts should […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Law Offices Of Marc Grossman Case Now Published 4/2 DCA Decision on Trope Prohibition in CPRA Context Is On The Books!

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

      On June 27, 2015, we posted on Law Offices of Marc Grossman, a Fourth District, Division 2 unpublished decision which held the Trope prohibition for recovery of attorney’s fees was not applicable to a California Public Records Act (CPRA) petition.  We can now report that the decision was certified for publication on July

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $17,250 Fee Award To Civil Harassment Prevailing Litigant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Defendant Prevailed, After Acrimonious Email Battle Involving His Wife Who Was The Losing Plaintiff’s Former Wife.      Plaintiff, Mr. Grier, former husband of Nancy Truong, filed a civil harassment petition against Ms. Truong’s current husband, Mr. Baturyn. Needless to say, emotions ran high. Even though plaintiff obtained some discovery and an initial TRO, he

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Law Firm Denied Fee Recovery Under California Public Records Act Get Redeemed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Trope Prohibition Inapplicable to Public Records Act Request.      In Law Offices of Marc Grossman v. Victor Elementary School Dist., Case No. E059579 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 26, 2015) (unpublished), a law firm representing a student of defendant elementary school sought public records reflecting the amount of money spent defending student’s assault action.

Family Law, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Lower Court Abused Its Discretion In Not Considering Two Fee Entitlement Statutes In Denying Domestic Violence Protection Act TRO Prevailing Party

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Matter Remanded To Consider Fees Request Under Two Statutes.     In Christner v. Sweeney, Case No. H040736 (6th Dist. June 19, 2015) (unpublished), an ex-boyfriend defendant defeated a TRO brought by plaintiff ex-girlfriend from a personal/business relationship under the Domestic Violence Protection Act.  The lower court then denied defendant’s request for fees of $49,812.10 under

Multiplier, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Substantiation: Three Unpublished “Power Ball” Decisions Synopsized

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Dept. of Parks and Recreation v. Schoendorf, Case No. H039321 (6th Dist. May 26, 2015) (unpublished).    In this one, an appellate court denied $300,000 in attorney’s fees against the State under a settlement agreement where “reasonable diligence” governed the fee entitlement.  Given that the prevailing party determination was discretionary under this clause and

Special Fee Shifting Statute, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $175,000 Fee Award To Community Services District Defendant Under Brown Act Reversed On Appeal

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

  Nothing Showed Lawsuit Was Clearly Frivolous and No Billing Records Made Substantiation Possible.      In Kent v. Lake Don Pedro Community Services Dist., Case Nos. F068354/F069197 (5th Dist. May 14, 2015) (unpublished), a third appellate round, plaintiffs challenging Brown Act violations by the District were hit with an adverse fee award of $175,000 under

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Third Circuit Court Of Appeals Finds Catalyst Theory Will Justify Fee Recovery Even If No Judgment Entered For Somewhat Successful Party

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Third Circuit Follows Four Other Circuit Courts On “Catalyst Theory.”      In Templin v. Independence Blue Cross, No. 13-4493 (3d Cir. May 8, 2015) (precedential), the Third Circuit determined that litigants who catalyze the defense to change conduct in ERISA cases can discretionarily collect attorney’s fees even if no judgment is entered—different than “prevailing

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: A Reader Takes Us To Task For Our Post On Willow Bend v. City of Holtville

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

A Reader Comments On Our Post About Willow Bend v. City of Holtville.      Above:  Neideffer Camp, Holtville, Imperial Valley.  Dorothea Lange, photographer.  Spring 1937.  Library of Congress.      Attorney Larry M. Hoffman of Vancouver, Washington, the advocate for appellants in Willow Bend v. City of Holtville, has written to us to comment about our

Scroll to Top