Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Probate/Special Fee Shifting Statute: $4,812 Venue Denial Order Properly Assessed Against Attorney In Probate Case

Cases: Probate, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Bad Faith Not Required, But Found and Sustained On Appeal. ​The interesting thing about this blog is that we, the co-contributors, learn something each day. ​Here is what we learned in the probate dispute of McDonnell v. Jarvis, Case No. H037704 (6th Dist. June 30, 2014) (unpublished), after we briefly summarize the case. The probate

Allocation/Prevailing Party/Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Two Tenants Recovering Fees Of $184,330.40 In Tenant Ordinance Dispute Keep Them On Appeal Against Landlord Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fee Award Did Not Have To Be Proportional To $45,441 Jury Verdict Recovery.      In Ochoa v. San Juan, Case Nos. A130993/A131051 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 9, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court considered the review of a $184,330.40 to two tenants under a tenant ordinance/ local proposition with prevailing party provisions even though

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Company’s Request For Attorney’s Fees Under California Public Records Act Properly Denied Where Company Did Not Prevail

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  County Produced Documents It Promised to Produce, So Company Was Not a Catalyst Behind Production.      In HR Management Corp., Inc. v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. A139841 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 29, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff company losing a services contract to two other businesses filed a request under the California Public

Allocation/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Winning Litigant Under Elder Abuse Claim Garners $156,346 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  No Apportionment Required Because Everything Involved Same Facts/Misconduct Allegations.      Winning litigant in Sanders v. Garfield Langmoir-Logan, Case No. G048524 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 14, 2014) (unpublished) won an elder abuse claim, which has a fee-shifting statute in favor of the prevailing party under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a). The lower court

Special Fee Shifting Statute: State/Local Services Prevailing Claimant Can Obtain Attorney’s Fees For Superior Court Mandate Proceedings, But Not Administrative Hearing Costs

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10962 Fee-Shifting Provision At Issue.      In K.I. v. Wagner, Case No. D063822 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 2, 2014) (published), the Fourth District, Division 1 appellate court decided that state/local social service claimants denied benefits at an administrative level, but winning in a superior court mandate proceeding, are

Scroll to Top