Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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      Estate of Hazewinkel, Case No. D058282 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 9, 2011) (unpublished) is interesting in its discussion of potential fee entitlement under California’s Elder Abuse Act statute, Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a).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      Although previously unpublished, we

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $6,500 In Referee Costs Appropriately Awarded To Winner In Harassment Injunction Proceeding

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  CCP § 527.6(i) Allowed It.      In Sabol v. Green, Case No. B225059 (2d Dist., Div. 6 November 28, 2011) (unpublished), one partner in a boat dealership appealed an anti-harassment injunction entered in favor of another partner and that partner’s wife. The trial court also awarded the winning parties no fees but $6,500 in

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Section 1717/Section 998/Allocation: Fee Awards Do Not Have To Be Proportional To Damages Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  2d Dist., Division 6 So Holds In Two Unpublished Opinions, Besides Facing Other Issues. Weiss v. Cope, Case No. B24970 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished)      In this one, plaintiff rejected defendant’s 998 offer. However, plaintiff’s total judgment–the sum of the jury award and $100,000 in attorney’s fees awarded by the

Construction/Prompt Payment Statutes/Section 1717: $528,410.24 In Fees/Costs Awarded To Winning Defendant/Cross-Complainant Under Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Prompt Payment Statute Did Not Mean Fees Went to Plaintiff Winning Some Money.      In Angotti & Reilly v. Alexander Group, Case Nos. A127917/A128743 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff sued for unpaid contractor fees under a construction contract with a fees clause, and defendant/cross-complainant countersued for defective work. Plaintiff obtained

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Employee Cannot Deduct Litigation Costs From Refund Owed To U.S. From Any FECA Benefits After Third Party Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Ninth Circuit So Rules In Case of Statutory Construction.      Under the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA), disability benefits are provided to federal employees who are injured on the job, subject to an employee bringing a civil case against a responsible third party and refunding to the U.S. any FECA benefits received by the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: CCP § 1038 Did Not Allow For Fee Award Where School District Won Via Demurrer

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $4,905.40 Fee Award Goes POOF!, However District Is Free to Try Again.      School district won a demurrer against an employee applicant suing for gender discrimination. It then was awarded fees of $4,905.40 under Code of Civil Procedure section section 1038.      The fee award got reversed in McCallum v. Escondido Union High School

Scroll to Top