Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 In Law Offices of Marc Grossman v. Victor Elementary School Dist., Case No. E059579 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 26, 2015) (unpublished), a law firm representing a student of defendant elementary school sought public records reflecting the amount of money spent defending student’s assault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 June 19, 2015) (unpublished), an ex-boyfriend defendant defeated a TRO brought by plaintiff ex-girlfriend from a personal/business relationship under the Domestic Violence Protection Act.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Multiplier, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Substantiation: Three Unpublished “Power Ball” Decisions Synopsized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 May 26, 2015) (unpublished).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 May 14, 2015) (unpublished), a third appellate round, plaintiffs challenging Brown Act violations by the District were hit with an adverse fee award of $175,000 under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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Attorney’s Fees Award Associated With Domestic Violence Restraining Order Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Various Technical and Due Process Argument Rejected.      In Faton v. Ahmedo, Case No. D066119 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2015) (unpublished), the man in a domestic violence restraining order battle with a lady he dated for a period of time eventually lost the DVRO proceeding and then was ordered to pay attorney’s

Special Fee Shifting Provision: Wel. & Inst. Code Section 14124.76 Determines Cal Dep’t of Health Care Services’ Share Of Medi-Cal Injured Party’s Attorney’s Fees Allocable Dep’t As Far As Lien Reduction For Reimbursement

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  State Department’s Interpretation of Statutory Scheme Rejected.      Although Aguilera v. Loma Linda University Medical Center, Case No. D066701 (4th Dist., Div. 1 April 2, 2015) (published) is a very practice-bound, technical decision, we still report on all areas of attorney’s fees.      Aguilera held that Welfare and Institutions Code section 14124.76’s formula, not

Section 1717, Non-signatories, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Nonsignatory Defendant Entitled To Fee Recovery Based On Statute Which Would Have Made Him Personally Liable For Signatory’s Obligations

Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Impact of Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Liability Considered By Appellate Panel.        Plaintiff (produce seller) sued a restaurant (Jack’s La Jolla) and its controlling officer Berkley to recover monies owed for the produce, claiming that Berkley had signed a guaranty and Berkley was subject to personal liability for restaurant’s contractual obligations (under an

Scroll to Top