Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Prevailing Party/Sanctions/Special Fee Shifting Statute: U.S. District Judge England Denies Clean Water Act Attorney’s Fees To Defendant After Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Citizsens Suit Due To High Ongoing Litigation Costs

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  District Court Also Denied Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions After Defendant Withdrew Rule 11 Motion After Grant of Voluntary Dismissal; Reasons For Both — No Prevailing Party.      The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, allows citizen suits and has a fee-shifting clause which allows a district court, in its discretion, to award litigation […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Motorcycle Dealership Winning Vehicle Code Section 11713.3 Claim For Franchisor Wrongfully Withholding Consent To Dealership Sale Correctly Awarded $533,350 In Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Dealer Not Entitled To Fees For Administrative Proceedings/Related Writ Proceedings Associated With Administrative Level Battles.      Powerhouse Motorsports Group, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., Case No. B236705 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 26, 2013) (published) involved a retail motorcycle dealership obtaining a jury verdict award of over $1.3 million in compensatory/punitive damages against

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Shareholder, Albeit With Little Time Left In This Status, Entitled To Unreduced Attorney’s Fees For Obtaining Inspection Of Corporation Defendant’s Documents Under Corporations Code Section 1604

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Trial Court Did Abuse Discretion By Reducing Discounted Fee Request By Another Half.      Corporations Code section 1604 provides that if a corporation fails without justification to comply with a shareholder demand for inspection of documents, the corporation can be assessed with attorney’s fees to reimburse the shareholder in connection with litigation involving the

POOF!/Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Provision: Reversal Of Federal Due Process Violations Count Required Remand Redetermination Of Fee Awards To Prevailing Parties In Reverse Validation Action

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

  Fee Entitlement Was Established Under Public Records Act and Private Attorney General Statute, But Reversal of Civil Rights Judgment Determination Required a “Relook” All Around.      Although quite a lengthy decision, Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, Case Nos. D060001/D061141 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 30, 2013) (published) does show that

Special Fee Shifting Provision: Public Records Act Petitioner Was Successful Party Entitled To $9,787.82 In Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Petitioner Prevailed On This Score — 3 Requests Granted, 2 Requests Denied, and 2 Requests Informally Resolved.      Petitioner seeking records on mold presence in a school district’s properties was able to force district to comply by producing certain records in Garcia v. Governing Bd. of Bellflower Unified School Dist., Case No. B247320 (2d

Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Defendant Losing Financial Elder Abuse Case Exposed To Fees Award

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $700,000 Was Fee Award, With Appellate Court Sustaining $686,500 Of It In Conceded Reductions.      Defendant in Kalfin v. Kalfin, Case No. G047275 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished) was hit with a $1.4 million compensatory and $260,000 punitive damages award on causes of action for contractual breach and financial abuse in

Special Fee Shifting Statute: School District Winning Personal Injury Suit Correctly Denied Fee Recovery Under CCP § 1038

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $331,210.16 Fee Request Rebuffed.       School district in Camberos v. Lewis, Case No. B230562 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 9, 2013) (unpublished) won a personal injury case through a nonsuit motion, but was denied a fee request of $331,210.16 under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038, a statute allow for fee recovery for a

Fee Clause Interpretation/Special Fee Shifting Provision: Voluntarily Dismissing Cross-Complainant In Involuntary Dissolution Action/Loser In Limited Partnership Battle Properly Assessed Attorney’s Fees Of Over $527,700 To Winners

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Limited Partnership Fees Clause Was Broad, And Judicial Dissolution Statute Did Not Retard Fee Exposure.      Limited partnerships (LPs), unfortunately, do foment a lot of legal disputes. No less, in this next case. The problem is that the losing litigant, although dismissing an involuntary dissolution cross-claim, lost both that as well as contractually-based claims

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Substantiation Of Fees: Contempt Judgment Fee Recovery Of $25,811 Affirmed Because Counsel Declaration Will Suffice For Fee Substantiation

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  California State Court Rules, More Lax, Steer the Determination.      In a long-standing feud of a sense, a trial court in Ripken v. Ballard, Case No. C070158 (3d Dist. Oct. 3, 2013) (unpublished) found that defendant was in contempt for disobeying a 2002 judgment restraining her and her agents from trespassing, blocking, or putting

Private Attorney General Statute/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Optometrist Overturning ALJ Determination Against His Certificate Not Entitled To Fee Award Under Private Attorney General Statute Or Government Code Section 800

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

  $80,000 Fee Award/$2,000 Costs Award Go POOF!        Artist:  Jean-Léon Gérôme.  1824 – 1904.      Optometrist had gotten a nice win–a superior court overturned an ALJ’s determination that the optometrist had violated the standard of care in relation to a patient’s cataracts diagnosis. The lower court then awarded optometrist about $80,000 in fees

Scroll to Top