Disability Fee Reversal–Mundy v. RLA Properties, Case Nos. B224667/B225612 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2011) (unpublished). In this one, plaintiff in a Disabled Persons Act case, which has a fee-shifting provision in favor of the “prevailing party” (Civ. Code, § 55), lost his attempt to obtain statutory damages in a bench trial, […]
Maybe an Oxymoron, But Stay With Us To See What This Covers. Our local Santa Ana appellate court recently considered a writ proceeding that involved Code of Civil Procedure section 1029.8. That particular provision allows someone to sue an unlicensed person causing injury to recover treble damages not exceeding $10,000 as well as
California Public Records Act Provides for Fee Shifting. Under our category “Specific Fee Shifting Statutes,” we have posted on the past about the California Public Records Act, which does allow litigants the opportunity to collect attorney’s fees and court costs if prevailing on a request to obtain a release of public documents.
Request For $571,495.60 in Fees Rebuffed; Fifth District Gives Great Review of Fee Standards For Both Trial and Appellate Levels. This next case is an interesting sequel to an on-going dispute by which a plaintiff prevailed against the Orosi Public Utility District for Brown Act and California Public Records Act violations, with the first
Need for Permit and Small Civil Penalty Did Trigger Fee Recovery. Clean Water Act (CWA) section 505(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d), allows a district court discretion to award attorney’s fees if two findings are made: (1) the free applicant was a prevailing or substantially prevailing party; and (2) a fee award is “appropriate.”
Document Disclosure Was Not Motivated By Records Request, Rules Fourth District, Division 3 The California Public Records Act (PRA), Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq., has a mandatory fee shifting provision when a plaintiff prevails and compels disclosures of public records after initiating civil proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief or mandate in
Fee Agreement Can Be Taken Into Account But Payment Goes to Client, Ninth Circuit Holds in a 2-1 Opinion. So far today, 2-1 appellate opinions have been the entrees on the menu in the fee area. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, at 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1)(A), makes the U.S. liable for
Fees Justified Under Government Code Section 800 and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1611.6; Costs Of $19,788.92 Justified Under CCP § 1032. Here are two companion cases from the Fifth District, Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. County of Madera, Case Nos. F059256 and F059621 (Apr. 20, 2011) (unpublished), discussing fee-shifting statutes we do
Carmack Act Apportionment Provision Was At Issue. Here is one that involves two carriers being sued and then battling it out for apportionment of responsibility and costs. The Carmack Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b), has a specific provision allowing for apportionment of costs between carriers, including reasonable expenses incurred in defending an action
Additional Fees and Costs Awarded After Sub-Subcontractor Prevails In Contractor’s Indemnity/Misrepresentation Cross-Complaint. Civil Code section 3248(b) authorizes an attorney’s fees award in an action “brought upon” a payment bond. Contractor and a payment bond surety heavily contested a sub-subcontractor’s right to collect $148,530.50 under the bond. Sub-sub eventually prevailed, after an earlier appellate
