Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Because Plaintiff Prevailed Through Mandate Challenging A Conditional Permit Revocation, It Correctly Was Denied Fees Under A Local Public Nuisance Ordinance With Reciprocal Fee-Shifting Provisions

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

No Fee Entitlement Was Shown.                Plaintiff obtained mandate relief against a municipality in a permit revocation dispute, subsequently moving for attorney’s fees under reciprocal fee-shifting provisions of the Perris Municipal Code relating to public nuisances.  The lower court denied Plaintiff’s motion for fees under the municipal code.  That determination was affirmed on appeal in […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Prevailing Petitioner In Administrative Proceeding Rescinding A DUI Driving Suspension Decision By A DMV Hearing Officer Was Not Entitled To An Award Of Attorney’s Fees For Subpoena Request To The Sheriff’s Department

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Petitioner’s Dilatory Request For Subpoena Enforcement Before The DMV Hearing Officer Did Not Warrant Fees Under Government Code Section 800.                Government Code section 800 requires an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing complainant in a civil action to review a ruling in an administrative proceeding, but only if the award, finding, or determination

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 2/6 DCA’s Reversal Of A Decision Finding No Brown Act Violations Meant That A Remand Was Necessary To Determine If Fees Were Warranted

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Because The Statute Is Discretionary, The Trial Judge Was The One To Determine If Fees Should Be Awarded.                In G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks, Case No. B337103 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 5, 2025) (unpublished), the 2/6 DCA reversed a trial court’s ruling that there was no Brown Act violation because an

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Winning Financial Elder Abuse Claim Against Adult Son Of A Dependent Father Was Properly Awarded $435,762 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Welfare & Institutions Code Section 15657.5 Allows For A Mandatory Fee Award.                In Letitchevski v. Sosa, Case No. B333962 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 22, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff, on behalf of a dependent father, won a financial elder abuse claim involving father’s adult son, by which a property transfer was voided, $13,500 was awarded

Arbitration, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff/Former Client Failed To Timely Reject The Award By Filing An Action After Service Of The Award And Failed To Timely Move To Vacate The Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

MFAA Deadlines Are Strict, Not Subject To CCP § 473 Relief.                Plaintiff/former client in Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck v. Shah, Case No. H051614 (6th Dist. Apr. 11, 2025) (unpublished) was unhappy that her former counsel sent an outstanding $200,000 receivable notice even though they were instrumental in working up a case resulting in

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

Scroll to Top