Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Overall Result, Remand to Calculate Mainly Attorney’s Fees Recovery.      Subcontractor on a public works project won damages, penalties, prejudgment interests, costs and attorney’s fees against general contractor and general’s surety, but sub was denied fees on the payment bond even though sub prevailed. General and surety appealed, and subcontractor cross-appealed claiming that fees […]

       Here is an interesting one in which no fees were requested, but a trial court used, and appellate court countenanced, use of a fee-shifting statute in making a merits determination of whether a governmental administrative agency’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable in nature.      In Graber v. County of San Bernardino, Case

  COM Was Defective For Not Indicating County Had Received An Opinion From COM Expert.      Here is a special fee-shifting statute that we have not talked about very often–if at all.      Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35 requires a plaintiff or cross-complainant to file a certificate of merit (COM) from an expert consultant

Fair Game      In Grossman v. Superior Court, Case No. E056931 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 10, 2012) (unpublished), the Riverside-based appellate court issued a writ determining that a California Public Records Act request for how much counsel was paid for defending a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  Freeman v. Vista de Santa Barbara Associates, Case No, B232845 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 26, 2012) (Unpublished)      In this case, plaintiff prevailed in a Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) action about rental control where $12,934 in damages were won.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.

  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