Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: A Prevailing Defendant Is Entitled To Attorney’s Fees For Defeating A Penal Code Section 502 Claim

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

With An Important “If”: If Plaintiff’s Case Was Objectively Without Foundation When Brought Or Plaintiff Continued To Litigate After It Became So.                Hay v. Marinkovich, Case No. D082561 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2025) (published) held that a prevailing defendant in a Penal Code section 502 case (section 502 prohibits an unauthorized use […]

Costs, Special Fee Shifting Statute: More Than $73,000 In City Attorney Time Needed To Complete CEQA Administrative Record Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Yes, Attorney, Paralegal, And Engineering Time Can Be Available As Allowable Costs And Fees To A Prevailing City In A CEQA Case.                Public Resources Code section 21167.6(b)(1) authorizes an award of allowable fees or costs in a CEQA case to a prevailing party, which may include reasonable attorney, paralegal, and engineering fees in completing

Family Law, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $43,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Petitioner In An Extensive DVRO Proceeding Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Current Version Of Family Code Section 6344 Is Retroactive To Cases Pending On Its Effective Date, With Fee Award Not Being Seen As Excessive In Nature.                Prevailing petitioner (ex-wife) was awarded $43,000 in attorney’s fees imposed upon her ex-husband under Family Code section 6344 in a DVRO proceeding.  That award was affirmed on appeal

Civil Rights, Prevailing Party, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Stipulated Judgment To Enforce Settlement Had Post-Judgment Enforcement Language Carve-Out Allowing For Further Post-Enforcement Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Also, On Remand, Trial Judge Had To Determine If Plaintiffs Prevailed In Voting Rights Act Case; And, If So, Amount Of Further Fees To Be Awarded.                In Robles v. City of Ontario, Case No. G064119 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 6, 2024) (published; originally issued unpublished on October 24, 2024), plaintiffs alleged that defendants

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Prevailing Plaintiff Awarded Only Partial Fees Under EAJA Wins Reversal And Remand For Award Of Fully Requested Fees In Case Challenging Social Security Administration’s Denial Of Disability Benefits

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Prevailing Plaintiff’s EAJA Fees Could Not Be Reduced Because She Raised Alternative Theories To Support A Single Claim, Even Though The Court Did Not Reach The Alternative Theories In Rendering Judgment In Plaintiff’s Favor.             The Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) requires the award of “reasonable attorney fees” to “a prevailing party other than

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: The Limitation Of Liability Act For Shipowners Required A Reversal Of A Single Claimant’s Foray Into State Court Based On Third-Party Claims And Requests For Attorney’s Fees Under The Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

The Case Was A Multiple Claimants Matter, With All The Claimants Having To Reach Stipulations With Protections To the Vessel Owner Before The Matter Could Return To State Court.               Well, we have a maritime proceeding to blog on.                In In re Live Life Bella Vita, LLC, Case No. 23-55613 (9th Cir. Sept. 12,

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Where Defendant Voluntarily Compensated Plaintiff After Filing Of Suit, Plaintiff Could Not Claim To Have “Successfully Prosecuted” The Matter For Purposes Of Fees Under The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation A

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Catalyst Theory Was Unavailable Under The Fee-Shifting Statute.                In Berry v. Air Force Central Welfare Fund, Case No. 23-15551 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024) (published), plaintiff sued to recover disability benefits from defendant under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Longshore Act).  After suit was filed, defendant voluntarily paid all the compensation plaintiff

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Denial Of DVRO Resulted In Adverse Fee/Cost Award Of $24,777.38 Against Unsuccessful Petitioning Party

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Failure To Oppose The Fee Motion Was Fatal.                A party prevailing in a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) can obtain attorney’s fees and costs.  Ex-girlfriend lost a DVRO petition, with the lower court awarding ex-boyfriend $24,777.38 in attorney’s fees and costs.  The appellate court affirmed the awards in Gikkas v. Stern, Case No. A168298

Paralegal Time, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Reduced Change Of Venue Fee Award Of $9,019.50 To Certain Defendants Affirmed In Part

Cases: Paralegal Time, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lower Court Properly Did Not Award Self-Represented Attorney Any Fees Relating To Himself (But Okay For Other Codefendants), But Matter Remanded To Apportion Fees And To Award Paralegal Compensation For A Law Clerk’s Work.                Civil Code section 396b, subd. (b) allows a lower court, in its discretion, to award attorney’s fees to a defendant

Costs, Deadlines, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $175,252.50 Fee Award Under Financial Elder Abuse Statute Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Request Reduced Down From $203,865; Two Awarded Routine Costs Components Remanded For A Further Hearing.                In Thompson v. Ito, Case No. G061437 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 12, 2024) (unpublished), a defendant losing a trust undue influence case and determined to have committed financial elder abuse was hit with an adverse attorney’s fees

Scroll to Top