Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Reversal Of Statutory Violation Award Under Health & Safety Code Statute Meant Attorney’s Fees Award Had To Be Revisited

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Degree of Success Was Key, Where Plaintiff Went From Obtaining $270,000 To Only $500.      Lemaire v. Covenant Care California, LLC, Case No. B248672 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 23, 2015) (published) is a situation where plaintiff won $270,000 in statutory damages for the defense failure to maintain complete and accurate medical records at […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute, Record: Public Entity Seeking Fees Under CCP § 1038 Must Support Motion With Specific Evidentiary Support And Citations To Trial Record

Cases: Record, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Public Entity Properly Denied Fees/Costs Under Section 1038 By Simply Pointing To Entirety Of Record.      Public entities seeking to recover fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038—a fee-shifting section allowing such entities to recoup fees and costs if they can demonstrate a suit was brought in bad faith or without

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Considers Standard Of Review For Fee Award Decision Relating To Surface Mining Control And Reclamation Act’s Administrative Fee-Award Provision

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Issue Was One Of First Impression for Ninth Circuit.      In Black Mesa Water Coalition v. Jewell, No. 12-16980 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2015) (published), the Ninth Circuit considered the “first impression” issue of the standard of review to be used for purposes of scrutinizing fee decisions made under the Surface Mining Control and

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $44,630 Fee Award Against Public Records Act Petitioner/Her Attorney Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Court Disagreed With Lower Court, Because PRA Litigation Was Not "Clearly Frivolous" So As To Justify Fee Order.      In Bertoli v. City of Sebastopol, Case No. A132916 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 20, 2015) (published), a petitioner/her attorney were hit with an adverse $44,630 fee award (out of a requested $82,380) in

Civil Right,Costs,Special Fee Shifting Statute: Lower Court Decision To Deny Prevailing Defendant Attorney’s Fees And CCP § 1038 Defense Costs Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Order Taxing Costs By Over Half Was No Abuse of Discretion, Either.      In Berro v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223515 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff—an ex-Los Angeles fire department captain—lost a FEHA case (mainly through a summary judgment motion), but the lower court refused to award Fire

Intellectual Property/Prevailing Party/Special Fee Shifting Statute: 4/3 DCA Determines That Penal Code Section 502’s Fee Entitlement Provision Applies to Both “Prevailing” Plaintiffs And Defendants

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Court Agrees With Trial Court Analysis, Which Departed From Contrary S.D. Cal. Federal Decision.      Plaintiff search engine optimization firm sued defendant marketing firm for breach of contract, prompting defendant to countersue plaintiff (as a cross-defendant) for breach of contract and for a violation of Penal Code section 502 (a computer hacking claim

Costs/Special Fee Shifting Statute: $275,825 Fee Award And $26,034.71 Cost Award Affirmed In Case Where Plaintiff Recovered Against Convicted Molestation Felon

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Plaintiff Did Prevail And Amounts of Awards No Abuse of Discretion.      In Oiye v. Fox, Case No. H038410 (6th Dist. Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff won about a $500,000 verdict against a defendant who was alleged to molest her, with defendant pleading no contest to two lewd counts (being sentenced to 6 years

Private Attorney General/Sanctions/Special Fee Shifting: Defendants Winning Demurrer On B & P Code Section Relating to Legal Advertising Improperly Awarded Fees Under B&P Code § 6158.4(i), Incorporating Private Attorney General Fee Entitlemen

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $18,900 Fee Award Goes POOF!, But Opponent’s CCP § 128.7 Motion Correctly Denied Where Defendants Trimmed Fee Request Down After Getting Safe Harbor Documents.      This next opinion, Ashegian v. Beirne, Case No. B254020 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished), is interesting because it deals with a first impression issue relating to

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Sanctions: Lower Court’s Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Summary Judgment Seeking Defendant Based On CRC 2.30(b) Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Trial Judge Needed to Explore Impact of Sino Century Development Case.      In Bongan v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., Case No. A137303 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 12, 2014) (unpublished), the lower court had awarded $15,100 in attorney’s fees in favor of a defendant and against a plaintiff/her attorney under California Rules of Court,

In The News . . . . Federal Circuit Affirms $253,777 Fee Recovery Under Patent Fee-Shifting Statute Where Plaintiff Failed To Introduce Admissible Evidence Of Infringement

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

  Highmark/Octane Recent Decisions Did Not Require Remand.      In our “In the News” post of September 8, 2014, we explored a recent Federal Circuit decision—Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgt. System, Inc.–remanding a fee recovery for reconsideration after SCOTUS’ 2014 Highmark/Octane decisions.      However, Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Hastie2Market, LLC, No. 2013-1537 (Fed. Cir.

Scroll to Top