Fair Game In Grossman v. Superior Court, Case No. E056931 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 10, 2012) (unpublished), the Riverside-based appellate court issued a writ determining that a California Public Records Act request for how much counsel was paid for defending a school district case was a proper request, akin to “fair game” information […]
Post-Fire Crisis Management Decisions Justified BLM’s Grazing Permit Position, Even Though Found Ultimately Unsuccessful. Western Watersheds Project v. Ellis, Case No. 11-35464 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2012) (published) involved an attorney’s fees dispute that, as the Ninth Circuit observed early on in its opinion, “added a rancorous coda to long-running grazing permit litigation
Freeman v. Vista de Santa Barbara Associates, Case No, B232845 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 26, 2012) (Unpublished) In this case, plaintiff prevailed in a Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) action about rental control where $12,934 in damages were won. She made a motion for attorney’s fees under a mandatory MRL fee-shifting clause (Civ.
Government Code Section 800 Cap Does Not Apply to Section 1611.6 Awards. Acting Presiding Justice Moore, in a 3-0 decision in Villa San Clemente LLC v. County of Orange, Case No. G04984 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2012) (unpublished), dealt with a $70,806.71 attorney’s fees award under Revenue and Taxation Code section
Plaintiff’s Attempt to Distinguish Existing Precedent Not Done In Bad Faith. In Petrella v. MGM, Case No. 10-55834 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012) (published), defendant obtained summary judgment based on a laches defense in a copyright case involving plaintiff’s claim that “Raging Bull” was a knock off of her work instead. The district
Defendant’s Attorneys Seeking Certiorari Grant by U.S. Supreme Court, With Several Amici Curiae Briefs Having Been Filed in Support of Defendant’s Position. In 1997, the Hyde Amendment was enacted, giving federal district judges the authority to award fees and other expenses to criminal defendants proving gross misconduct on the part of federal prosecutors
“Reverse” Unity of Interest Argument Did Not Dictate Different Result. Civil Code section 3344.1, California’s right to publicity statute, does contain a mandatory fee-shifting clause in favor of the prevailing party, with attorney’s fees and costs being the carrot for such a party. The next case involves an interesting procedural situation in a
Both Prongs of Disjunctive Section 1021.7 Elements Satisfied Here. Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.7 is a special-fee shifting provision which allows defendants in a peace officer damages action to recover reasonable attorney’s fees in the court’s discretion upon a finding “that the action was not filed or maintained in good faith and
$2.5 Million Fee and $22,000 Costs Awards Went Away. In Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, Case Nos. 11-15468 et al. (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2012) (published), the Ninth Circuit dealt with a situation where two private plaintiffs obtained statutory damages and substantial $2,515,387.09 fee and $22,012.36 costs awards under 50 U.S.C. § 1810.
None Under Either Section 1717 or the UFTA. The Fourth District, Division 1 in Levine v. McAvoy, Case No. D058894 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 2, 2012) (unpublished) decided that fee exposure was correctly not visited upon losing plaintiffs seeking to recoup monies from third-party transferees under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA).
