Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Successful Brown Act Winner Accomplishing “Very, Very Little–If Anything” Properly Denied Fee Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Special Circumstances Were Shown in This One.      Plaintiff/petitioner in Citizens for Open and Public Participation v. City of Montebello, Case No. B244106 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 23, 2013) (unpublished) sought writ relief for closed session Brown Act violations, with the lower court finding some violations but ultimately denying writ relief and petitioner’s […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Litigant Winning Civil Harassment Restraining Order Dispute On Appeal Remanded To Trial Court To Fix Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Court Deferred to Trial Court.      In a very frequent occurrence, the appellate court in Brown v. Evpak, Case No. C069590 (3d Dist. Dec. 3, 2013) (unpublished) did what we have seen in the past with respect to these types of disputes. After affirming a case with a civil harassment fee-shifting statute, it

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

Scroll to Top