Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Losing Tort Act Claim On Summary Judgment, Based On Lack Of Information, Gave Rise To Fee Exposure Under CCP § 1038

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       Plaintiff, in Walker v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B236376 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 30, 2013) (unpublished), lost an invasion of privacy claim to Los Angeles on summary judgment. The summary judgment proceeding showed plaintiff based his claim on hearsay information found to not pan out when the defense proof was […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Felonious Vehicle Fleeing Was Not The Same As Accident Necessary To Provide Fee Entitlement Under Felony Convictions Damages Statute

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Missing:  Causal Link “Based Upon” Statutory Language of CCP 1021.4       Automobile Wreck of 1910.  Puck.  Library of Congress.        Corenbaum v. Lampkin, Case Nos. B236227/B237871 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 30, 2013) (published) dealt in part with the statutory interpretation of CCP § 1021.4, which allows for discretionary recovery of fees to

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Winning Fair Use Defense Entitled To $155,000 Under Copyright Act

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       Well, the Ninth Circuit has somewhat sent out a warning: plaintiff with a “slim or none” copyright infringement case–in light of a meritorious fair use defense–needs to rethink or get hit with attorney’s fees under section 505 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §505), which allows a district court to grant to the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Bona Fide Dispute Meant That Fee Denial Under Prompt Payment Statutes Was No Error

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       Business and Professions Code section 7108.5 and Public Contract Code 7107 are prompt payment statutes, designed to make sure that subcontractors are promptly paid for services/work/materials once the contractor receives either progress payments or retention proceeds on public works construction projects. However, each provision does have a good faith/bona fide dispute only triggering

Discovery/Special Fee Shifting Statute/Trade Secrets: Losing Plaintiffs In Patent/Trade Secret Dispute Hit With $12.46 Million For Attorney’s Fees And Electronic Discovery Expenses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Trade Secrets

  Only $1 Million Reduction From Fees Requested.      Patent/trade secrets are usually vigorously and heavily litigated, and the losers can get hit with substantial fees/expenses as Gabriel Techs., Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 08CV1992 AJB (MDD), 2013 WL 410103 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) demonstrates.      There, plaintiffs lost a patent infringement/trade secrets case.

Allocation/Special Fee Shifting Statute: General Contractor Winning Stop Notice Claim Against Bank Entitled To Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Trial Court Did Not Err in Apportioning Some Fee Recovery Out With Respect to Successful Mechanic’s Lien Claim.      HJH Construction, Inc. v. California Bank & Trust, Case No. E053033 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished) involved a failed real estate development project in Palm Springs where general contractor received a $690,710-plus

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Substantiation of Fees/Trade Secrets: Ninth Circuit Decision Is In — Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Trade Secrets

  Trade Secrets Damages/Fees/Costs Go POOF!, But Copyright Defense Fee/Costs Recovery to MGA Sustained On Appeal.      In a remarkably short decision penned by Chief Justice Kozinski on behalf of a 3-0 panel, the Ninth Circuit has taken some things away and let other things stay in the oft-posted-upon Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.,

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Prompt Payment Fee Recovery Affirmed Subject To Deduct And Payment Bond Fee Recovery Improperly Denied

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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Even Though No Attorney’s Fees Sought, Trial Court Did Not Error In Using Government Code Section 800 Principles In Determining If County Board’s Action Was Unreasonable And Arbitrary

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Losing County’s Failure To Comply With Professional Engineer Certificate Of Merit Compliance Requirements Justified $286,835.24 Fee/Costs Award Against It

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Scroll to Top