Cases: Special 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      Property owner in Marchi-Friel v. Rago, Case No. A130125 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 31, 2012) (unpublished) did obtain cancellation of a fraudulent grant deed, with the trial court also cancelling related promissory notes out of an abundance of caution.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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To City Was Legally Erroneous Under CCP § 1021.7

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Plaintiff’s Case Was Brought and Prosecuted Without Reasonable Cause, But Remanded So Discretion Could Be Exercised. Above: The Federal Theatre presents "I want a policeman" by Rufus King & Milton Lazarus. Fastest moving comedy of the season : First time in San Diego. Federal Arts Project.  1936-41.  Library of Congress.       Code of Civil

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

Scroll to Top