Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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in a 3-0 decision in Villa San Clemente LLC v. County of Orange, Case No. G04984 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2012) (unpublished), dealt with a $70,806.71 attorney’s fees award under Revenue and Taxation Code section […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Obtaining Summary Judgment Based On Laches In Copyright Case Denied Sanctions And Fee Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Sanctions/Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Eleventh Circuit Decision In Shaygan Is A Sharply Split Decision On Interpretation of Hyde Amendment

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Celebrities/Prevailing Party/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff’s Dismissal Of Complaint Without Prejudice Due to Defense Standing Challenge Triggers Fee Exposure Under Cal Right To Publicity Statute

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  “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

Civil Rights/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Attorney’s Lack Of Credibility About Claim Filing Justified CCP § 1021.7 Fee Award Against His Client

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

POOF!/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Determination Of No Sovereign Immunity Waiver Meant Substantial Fee Award Under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Goes POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $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.

Section 1717/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Losing Plaintiffs’ Efforts To Recoup Monies Under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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).

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CCP § 1218 Contempt Fee-Shifting Provision May Allow Fee Recovery To In Pro Per Attorney Party If She Can Establish Attorney-Client Relationship In Representing A Co-Plaintiff

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Private Attorney General Decisions on Subject Found Analogous.      Rickley v. Goodfriend, Case No. B234152 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 30, 2012) (published) is an interesting decision where a co-plaintiff in pro per attorney, who is a member of the California bar, sued neighbors with her co-plaintiff spouse.  Plaintiffs obtained contempt judgments against defendants

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Education Code Section 44944(e)(2) Justified Fee Award To Employee Not Dismissed But Where Governing Board Tried To Structure A Decision To Avoid Fee Award

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Third District Would Not Elevate Form Over Substance.      We don’t have that many times to do blogs on fee issues for school districts and tenured teachers. Well, here is one for you both.      In Boliou v. Stockton Unified School Dist., Case No. C068266 (3d Dist. June 25, 2012) (published), the school district

Consumer Statutes/Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Consumer Winning Fraud Case Against Motor Vehicle Retailer Doesn’t Get Fees Under Vehicle Code Statute, Doesn’t Get Fees Under Contractual Provisions Based On Surety Law, But Does Get Them

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Wow–Fee Entitlement Can Be Had, If You Are Tenacious And Can Get to the Right Independent Basis!      The Fifth District’s decision in Pierce v. Western Surety Co., Case No. F062096 (5th Dist. June 22, 2012) (published) goes to show you that the fee entitlement race sometimes goes to the tenacious. All you need

Scroll to Top