Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Indemnity: Public Employee Who Incurred Legal Fees/Costs During Course Of Law Enforcement Investigations Not Leading To Any Court Proceedings/Actions Not Entitled To Reimbursement Under Government Code Sections 995/996.4 Or Labor Code Section 2802

Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Lack of Court or Judicial Proceedings Was Dispositive.      Ms. Thornton, near the end of her term as a Board member of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, was appointed as an ALJ for the Board, a hire that was subsequently investigated by the State Auditor and Sacramento District Attorney’s Office for potential Government […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Absent Interpleader Action, Public Entity Cannot Recover Attorney’s Fees Against Stop Notice Claimant

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $10,974 Fee Recovery to College District Reversed on Appeal.      Okay, real estate fans, we have an attorney’s fees decision in the stop notice area.      In Tri-State, Inc. v. Long Beach Community College Dist., Case No. B231848 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 12, 2012) (certified for publication), the appellate court decided that a

Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Prevailing Parties Under California Voting Rights Act Are Entitled To Fees, But Only Against One Party And 95% Fee Reduction For Inflated Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Only $162,500 In $1.7 Million Requested Fees Were Awarded–A Result Sustained On Appeal.      Rey v. Madera Unified School Dist., Case No. F061532 (5th Dist. Feb. 28, 2012) (certified for publication) is somewhat of a sobering decision, reminding all of us that inflated fee requests can and will be severely discounted by lower courts,

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Contractor’s Failure Of Proof On Prompt Penalty Violation Claim Doomed Effort To Collect Fees As Statutory Penalty

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Court of Appeal Followed Logic of Hinerfeld-Ward Decision.      In Center Circle Constr. Corp. v. 652 Chautauqua, LLC, Case No. B226279 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 22, 2012) (unpublished), contractor prevailed at trial, but did not prevail on a prompt payment statute violation that payments were wrongfully withheld. The trial court determined that contractor’s

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Restaurant Chain Owners Lost Copyright Infringement Battle, With Ninth Circuit Affirming Litigation Result And Fee Award To Winning Plaintiffs

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $36,000 Infringement Win Was Hardly the “Sting”–But $162,728.22 Adverse Fee Award Was.     The Copyright Act gives district courts a wide latitude to exercise equitable discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in copyright infringement cases. 17 U.S.C. § 505; Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1229

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Rules That “Utter Lack Of Proof” Win By Defense In Functionality Case Triggered Exceptional Fee Award Under Lanham Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Except For $83,229.49 Component Sent For Remand Determinations, $836,899.99 Was the Fee Hit Against Losing Plaintiff.      Plaintiff suing for trade dress protection under the Lanham Act lost a functionality-oriented case in Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., Case Nos. 10-17007 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012) (for publication). The

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Rules That “Utter Lack Of Proof” Win By Defense In Functionality Case Triggered Exceptional Fee Award Under Lanham Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Except For $83,229.49 Component Sent For Remand Determinations, $836,899.99 Was the Fee Hit Against Losing Plaintiff.      Plaintiff suing for trade dress protection under the Lanham Act lost a functionality-oriented case in Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., Case Nos. 10-17007 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012) (for publication). The

Employment/Special Fee Shifting Statute: State Labor Commissioner Entitled To Fee/Costs Under Labor Code Section 98.7 Against Employer Held Liable To Employee For Retaliation And Employee Gets Indemnification Fees/Costs Under Labor Code Section 2802 After

Cases: Employment, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Respective Fee/Costs Awards of $232,435.50 and $101,078 Are Sustained.      Just to show you that the losing cases can unleash a lot of fee/costs exposure based on Labor Code statutes, the next one is a case in point.      In 1538 Cahuenga Partners, LLC v. Fabe, Case No. B222023 (consolidated) (2d Dist., Div. 8

Allocation/Appellate Sanctions/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fourth District, Division 3 Sanctions Plaintiffs’ Attorneys For CRC Appeals Violations And Losing Derivative Plaintiffs Are Hit With Substantial Fee Awards Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Case #1: Appellate Sanctions Are Imposed.      In Alexandros v. Cole, Case No. G043715 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 30, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a minority shareholder breach-of-fiduciary duty suit against various defendants and then lost their appeal. However, the appellate court also awarded $10,000 (out of a requested $30,000) in sanctions to defendants

Costs/Deadlines/Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Substantial Fee Awards Against Losing Subcontractor, After Contractor Paid Disputed Small Amount, Affimed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Some of the Appeals Were Untimely; College District Award of Costs and Fee Justified in Nature.      Subcontractor sued a general contractor and community college district on an approximate $100,000 extra work claim. Subcontractor lost many of the claims through pre-trial dispositive motions and dismissed the remaining claim after general contractor paid a disputed

Scroll to Top