Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 Oct. 3, 2013) (unpublished) found that defendant was in contempt for disobeying a 2002 judgment restraining her and her agents from trespassing, blocking, or putting […]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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Lower Court’s Denial Of Fee Request To Prevailing Party Under California Public Records Act Reversed

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Motivation of Party Irrelevant; Negative Multiplier Was Abuse of Discretion.      In Guarino v. City of Fontana, Case No. E054357 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 26, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a request for documents with the City of Fontana under the California Above:  Fontana City Hall.  Author:  JWut89LA.  Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Public

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $23,405.04 Is Fee Award Price Plaintiff Must Pay Defendant For Being Found Noncredible In Restraining Order Dispute

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  CCP § 527.6 Allows Court to Award Fees to Prevailing Party.      In Narog v. Claybaugh, Case No. A131782 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 29, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a restraining order petition against neighbor defendant, who responded by seeking a declaration that plaintiff was a vexatious litigant and should have to post a

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Failure To Find Contempt Meant Trial Court Erred In Awarding Fees To A Party Who Nonetheless Got An Order Mandating That The Other Party Not Interfere With Provisional Director Decisions

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  No Basis for Fee Entitlement Shown.      Cain killing Abel. Jan Lievens.      De Freitas v. M.J.B. Pipeline, Case No. A133946 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 23, 2013) (unpublished) pitted two deadlocked 50-50 shareholder brothers of a corporation against each other. Although a voluntary dissolution had been initiated, one of the brothers successfully

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Specialized Housing Development Statute Only Allowed Fee Recovery For Affordable Housing Developments

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Case Is A Good One For Use of Legislative History When Confronting An Ambiguous Statute.      Government Code section 65589.5(k) provides that the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff proposing “the housing development” under the Not-In-My-Back-Yard law, which usually would be a fee-shifting provision that was pro-developer

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Person Injured From Criminal Theft Activity Can Obtain Treble Damages And Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fybel/Feibush/Fees: Penal Code Section 496(c) Is the Fee-Shifting Predicate.      Although not directly addressing fees but certainly mentioning a fee-shifting statute, Justice Fybel in Bell v. Feibush, 212 Cal.App.4th 1041 (2013) [4th Dist., Div. 3], certainly discusses Penal Code section 496(c). That provisions states that any person “who has been injured by a violation

Section 998/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Trial Court Did Exercise Equitable Discretion In Reducing Fees, So Appellate Court Did Not Have To Decide CCP § 998 Interaction With Uniform Partnership Act Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $97,145.71 Fee Award Out of Requested $488,521.45 Fees/Costs Request Was the Ultimate Result.      The next case illustrates how appellate courts will avoid having to decide the clashing interests of two statutes if they can decide that the lower court showed equitable discretion so as to moot any decision on the “clash.”      Overland

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $113,841.10 Fee Award Under Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       Defendants lost a sales commission dispute against a plaintiff under the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act, Civ. Code, § 1738.10 et seq., which has a mandatory fee-shifting provision in favor of a prevailing party (§ 1738.16). Plaintiff then won an unopposed fee award of $113,841.10.      The award was affirmed in

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fee Denial Remanded Because Trial Court Misunderstood The Law, Meaning Discretion Was Not Properly Exercised

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fee Denial Occurred in Domestic Violence Civil Case.      Wife in Bolander v. Bolander, Case No. A134509 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 25, 2013) (unpublished) recovered $405,000 is a civil domestic violence case arising from her claims of nonconsensual sexual conduct after her husband laced her wine with Ambien on two occasions. She then

Scroll to Top