Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 v. 652 Chautauqua, LLC, Case No. B226279 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 22, 2012) (unpublished), contractor prevailed at trial, but did not prevail on a prompt payment statute violation that payments were wrongfully withheld.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

Celebrities/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Orthopedic Surgeon Did Prevail In Commercial Name Misappropriation Case So That $320,000 Fee Award Was Proper

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Civil Code Section 3344(a) Does Not Require Fees to Bear a Percentage to Ultimate Recovery.      Well, readers, we are winding to a New Year, but we will blog on a special-fee shifting statute applicable in commercial name misappropriation cases–Civil Code section 3344(a), which has a mandatory fee-shifting provision. The next case we discuss

Probate/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Elder Abuse Fee Entitlement Unclear Based On Murky Statement Of Decision Denying Fee Award

Cases: Probate, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Independent Tort versus Statutory Violation Didn’t Need to be Addressed Here.      Estate of Hazewinkel, Case No. D058282 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 9, 2011) (unpublished) is interesting in its discussion of potential fee entitlement under California’s Elder Abuse Act statute, Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a).      Although it reversed the denial of

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Imports Performance Decision Now Certified For Partial Publication

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Publication of Investigation Costs Award Is Now In the Citable Jurisprudence.      In our November 11, 2011 post, we discussed Imports Performance v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair, where the lower court awarded the Bureau $35,366.40 in investigation/enforcement costs and the award was affirmed on appeal.      Although previously unpublished, we

Scroll to Top