Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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      The Fourth District, Division 1 in Levine v. McAvoy, Case No. D058894 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 2, 2012) (unpublished) decided that fee exposure was correctly not visited upon losing plaintiffs seeking to recoup monies from third-party transferees under the Uniform Fraudulent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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: ERISA Attorneys Unite–Ninth Circuit Addresses “Appropriate Equitable Relief” Language Under Section 502(a)(3)

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Attorneys Properly Dismissed From Controversy, But Matter Remanded to See If Employer/Fiduciary Had to Bear Proportionate Fees And Costs Incurred by Plaintiff Employee In Recovering Third Party Tortfeasor/Uninsured Motorist Proceeds.      Well, we do not usually have a lot of ERISA issues to report on. Not today, we do.      CGI Technologies and Solutions,

Special Fee Shifting Statutes–Federal: 2005 Federal Judicial Center Study Provides A Roadmap For Fee Entitlement

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Part I: Fee Entitlement.      In 2005, Alan Hirsch and Diane Sheehey issued the second edition of “Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Managing Fee Litigation” through the Federal Judicial Center.      Here, we provide you will their analytical outline of determining whether a fee award is in order under federal fee shifting statutes:      *

Requests For Admissions/Section 1717/Specific Fee Shifting Statutes: Property Owner Obtaining Cancellation Of Grant Deed For Fraud Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Recovery

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Three Grounds for Recovery Did Not Support Request.      Property owner in Marchi-Friel v. Rago, Case No. A130125 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 31, 2012) (unpublished) did obtain cancellation of a fraudulent grant deed, with the trial court also cancelling related promissory notes out of an abundance of caution. She then sought recovery of

Class Actions/Special Fee Shifting Statute/In The News . . . . $1,468,380 In Attorney’s Fees Awarded Against Losing 14 Named Class Members In California Automobile Sales Finance Act Case

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

       Here is an interesting one you do not see too often–named class members having to pay attorney’s fees to the winning defendant.      On May 9, 2012, MMD Newswire posted that Raceway Ford, Inc. was awarded $1,468,380 in attorney’s fees plus costs as against 14 named class members, jointly and severally, in an

Scroll to Top