Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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      In Berro v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223515 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff—an ex-Los Angeles fire department captain—lost a FEHA case (mainly through a summary judgment motion), but the lower court refused to award Fire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 Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff won about a $500,000 verdict against a defendant who was alleged to molest her, with defendant pleading no contest to two lewd counts (being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      This next opinion, Ashegian v. Beirne, Case No. B254020 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished), is interesting because it deals with a first impression issue relating to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.

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Cross-Defendants Not Overall Prevailing In Mobilehome Residency Dispute Affirmed

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  However, One Cross-Defendant’s Dismissal From Entire Pleading Did Give Rise To Potential Fee Recovery, With Any Apportionment To Be Considered On Remand.      The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), Civ. Code section 798 et seq., extensively regulates the landlord-tenant relationship between mobile home park owners and residents. It also has a fee-shifting provision in Civil

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff’s Counsel Failure To Submit Fee Entitlement Predicate Question To Jury Resulted In No Basis For A Fee Award

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Special Statute Under Consideration Is Health and Safety Code § 1317.6.      Health and Safety Code section 1317.6(j) provides that, in a civil action, any person who suffers personal harm as a result of certain emergency room service violations by a transferring or receiving hospital may recover reasonable attorney’s fees.      In Camargo v.

Deadlines/Judgment Enforcement/Special Fee Shifting Statute (Elder Abuse): California Supreme Court “Splits The Baby” On Deciding If Appellate Fees For Elder Abuse And Fraudulent Transfer Claims Are Subject To Deadline Of Being Claimed Before Judgmen

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Answers:  “No” on Elder Abuse; “Yes” on Fraudulent Transfer.             In Conservatorship of McQueen, Case No. S209376 (Cal. Supreme Court July 7 2014), the California Supreme Court faced an interesting timing issue as to when appellate fees must be filed for and sought in a post-judgment enforcement situation.  Specifically, the plaintiff prevailed on both elder

Scroll to Top