Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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      HJH Construction, Inc. v. California Bank & Trust, Case No. E053033 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished) involved a failed real estate development project in Palm Springs where general contractor received a $690,710-plus […]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

Prevailing Party/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fee Denial To Attorney In Contempt Proceeding Reversed And Remanded To Determine Existence of Attorney-Client Relationship Giving Rise to Fee Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  First Aftermath of Published Rickley v. Goodfriend Decision      On July 30, 2012, we posted on Rickley v. Goodfriend, 207 Cal.App.4th 1528 (2012) (Rickley I), which reversed  a fee denial reversed, based on CCP § 1218 which does allow contempt proceeding fee-shifting in the right circumstances. The matter was remanded, however, to determine if

Special Fee Shifting Provision: Defense Costs In School District Case Was A Proper California Public Records Act Request

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: District Court’s Denial Of Fees To Successful Plaintiff In BLM Grazing Permit Dispute Was Justified Under EAJA

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Private Attorney General: Second District, Division 6 Issues Double, Double Decisions Of Interest To Mobilehome and Election Law Attorneys

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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.

Allocation/Special Fee Shifting Statute/Taxation: Prevailing Real Property Taxpayer Properly Awarded $70,806.71 Under Revenue And Taxation Code Section 1611.6

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Taxation

  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

Scroll to Top