Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Although Burdensome, California Public Records Act Request Was Not “Clearly Frivolous” To Justify Fees Against Records Claimant

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Flaherty Appellate Sanctions Standard Applied to Public Records Act Element.      The Third District has finally spoken in Crews v. Willows Unified School Dist., Case No. C066633 (3d Dist. July 17, 2013) (published) on a California Public Records Act dispute . . . at least for the time being.      This is a long-running […]

Retainer Agreements/Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Fee Agreement Directing Payment To Attorneys Given Deference In Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Case

Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Retainer Agreement Trumped Everything.      USA v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, Case No. 07-56549 (9th Cir. July 17, 2013) (for publication) shows that fee agreements directing payment of fees to attorneys from a collective perspective can and do make a difference.      In this one, a suspended California corporation had assigned collection of fees

Costs/Specific Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Winning Challenge To Property Assessment On Narrow Grounds Not Entitled to Fees Under Specific Revenue & Taxation Code Sections

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Also, Plaintiff Cannot Receive Trial Expenses As Costs Based on Being Awarded Costs on Appeal from An Earlier Appeal.      Plaintiff property owner, in a prior published decision, obtained a trial court judgment affirmed on appeal in connection with a determination that the Nevada County Assessment Appeals Board failed to apply the correct burden

Allocation/POOF!/Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $952,142.50 Fee Award Evaporates Upon Reversal of Merits

Cases: Allocation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       The Second District, Division 4 in Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing and Wellness Centre, Case No. B235372 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 5, 2013) (published) reversed an Elder Abuse Act substantial jury verdict, even though the plaintiff also prevailed on a Patient’s Bill of Rights claim, with both schemes having a fee

Specific Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff’s Untimely Vaccine Petition Did Not Mean She Could Not Recover Fees Under National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  The United States Supreme Court in Sebelius v. Cloer, No. 12-236 (U.S. May 20, 2013) has spoken.      Children await inoculation.  1944.  Library of Congress.      In this case, plaintiff filed a petition to recovery for injuries due to vaccines under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. However, a special master found the petition

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Losing Tort Act Claim On Summary Judgment, Based On Lack Of Information, Gave Rise To Fee Exposure Under CCP § 1038

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       Plaintiff, in Walker v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B236376 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 30, 2013) (unpublished), lost an invasion of privacy claim to Los Angeles on summary judgment. The summary judgment proceeding showed plaintiff based his claim on hearsay information found to not pan out when the defense proof was

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Felonious Vehicle Fleeing Was Not The Same As Accident Necessary To Provide Fee Entitlement Under Felony Convictions Damages Statute

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Missing:  Causal Link “Based Upon” Statutory Language of CCP 1021.4       Automobile Wreck of 1910.  Puck.  Library of Congress.        Corenbaum v. Lampkin, Case Nos. B236227/B237871 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 30, 2013) (published) dealt in part with the statutory interpretation of CCP § 1021.4, which allows for discretionary recovery of fees to

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Winning Fair Use Defense Entitled To $155,000 Under Copyright Act

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       Well, the Ninth Circuit has somewhat sent out a warning: plaintiff with a “slim or none” copyright infringement case–in light of a meritorious fair use defense–needs to rethink or get hit with attorney’s fees under section 505 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §505), which allows a district court to grant to the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Bona Fide Dispute Meant That Fee Denial Under Prompt Payment Statutes Was No Error

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       Business and Professions Code section 7108.5 and Public Contract Code 7107 are prompt payment statutes, designed to make sure that subcontractors are promptly paid for services/work/materials once the contractor receives either progress payments or retention proceeds on public works construction projects. However, each provision does have a good faith/bona fide dispute only triggering

Discovery/Special Fee Shifting Statute/Trade Secrets: Losing Plaintiffs In Patent/Trade Secret Dispute Hit With $12.46 Million For Attorney’s Fees And Electronic Discovery Expenses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Trade Secrets

  Only $1 Million Reduction From Fees Requested.      Patent/trade secrets are usually vigorously and heavily litigated, and the losers can get hit with substantial fees/expenses as Gabriel Techs., Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 08CV1992 AJB (MDD), 2013 WL 410103 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) demonstrates.      There, plaintiffs lost a patent infringement/trade secrets case.

Scroll to Top