Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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      In Faton v. Ahmedo, Case No. D066119 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2015) (unpublished), the man in a domestic violence restraining order battle with a lady he dated for a period of time eventually lost the DVRO proceeding and then was ordered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

Special Fee Shifting Statute, Prevailing Party: Individual Defendant Having Prior Property In Public Nuisance Case Properly Denied Fees/Costs Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fee Entitlement Not Present; Normal Routine Prevailing Party Costs Definition Did Not Apply Based On A Pragmatic Inquiry.      In City of Ridgecrest v. Howard, Case No. F068679 (5th Dist. Mar. 5, 2015) (unpublished), defendants were ordered to abate a public nuisance on properties having alleged dilapidated equipment and other items. However, one defendant

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

Scroll to Top