Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

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

Scroll to Top