Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes – Page 36

Special Fee Shifting Statute And Tort Of Another: Settlement Confirmed As Good Faith Settlement Because Settling Party Had No Indemnity Fee Exposure Under Health and Safety Code Fee Provision Or Tort Of Another Doctrine

September 3, 2011

$1.5 Million Fee Exposure Was Nonexistent Such That Indemnity Rights Issue Did Not Impact Good Faith Settlement Analysis. In PacificCare of California v. Bright Medical Associates, Inc., Case No. G041507 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 2, 2011) (certified for publication), Acting Presiding Justice Aronson affirmed a good faith settlement determination after deciding on […]

News About the News: LA Times Reports on Its Own Attorney’s Fees Legal Victory

August 31, 2011

Judge James C. Chalfant Orders Sheriff’s Department to Pay $173,000 in Fees in Public Records Act Lawsuit. In the August 31, 2011 online edition of the LA Times, Victoria Kim reports that Judge Chalfant has ordered the LA County Sheriff’s Department to pay nearly $173,000 in legal fees to the LA Times incurred in

Special Fee Shifting Statutes–Prompt Payment Statutes: Denial Of Fee Award Reversed Under Prompt Payment Statutes For Winning Subcontractor

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

August 13, 2011

Contract Having “Each Side Bear Fees” Provision Did Not Trump Statutory Fee Recovery. The appellate court in Cleveland Wrecking Co. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case Nos. A124033/A125811 (lst Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 9, 2011) (unpublished) dealt with a case where a winning subcontractor–entitled to fee recovery under the prompt payment statute codified

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Substantiation of Fees: $71,500 Attorney’s Fees Award Sustained Against Many Procedural Challenges

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

August 13, 2011

SLAPP Appeal Did Not Stay Fee Motion and Block Billing Challenge Rejected. In Mangine v. Steier, Case Nos. B219022/B222822 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was SLAPPed and lost a summary adjudication of a landlord-tenant dispute in which the lower court granted attorney’s fees of $71,500 to present landlord under

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Denial Of Winning Plaintiff’s Lanham Act Fee Request Reversed

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

July 30, 2011

District Judge Used Wrong Legal Standards, Failing to Look at Defendant’s Conduct in Examining Request. Plaintiffs won a Lanham Act claim by obtaining an injunction (but no damages) against defendants, who run a DMV for-profit website that was found to have unlawfully fostered the belief that it was run or endorsed by the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Mobilehome Residents, Losers On Their Cross-Complaint, Still Win MRL Attorney’s Fees When Plaintiff Dismisses Suit

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

July 30, 2011

Appellate Court Finds Statutory Mandate is Clear. This one shows how appellate court will enforce statutes as written. The Mobilehome Residency Law has an attorney’s fees and costs provision in Civil Code section 798.85, which requires an award of fees and costs to a prevailing party–with prevailing party defined as one who

Civil Rights/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Winner In Public Disclosure Bar False Claims Dispute Was Entitled To Fees Even Though There Was A Merits Dismissal And Did Prevail For Fee-Shifting Purposes

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

July 23, 2011

First District, Division 4 Adds to State False Claims Act Fee Shifting Jurisprudence. In our June 6, 2011 post, we explored the Second District, Division 6’s recent decision in County of Kern v. Jadwin, where Justice Yegan on behalf of a unanimous panel discussed the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”) (explained, along with

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Equity: Conditioning Leave To File Cross-Complaint Upon Payment Of $80,000 In Fees To Other Side Was No Go

Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

July 19, 2011

Condition Was Too Much of a Sanction, Because Fees Not Causally Related to Cross-Complaint Filing. In a convoluted fee dispute between former client and attorney, the trial court granted attorney leave to file a cross-complaint, but conditioned on attorney paying client some $80,000 to compensate her for attorney’s fees she incurred in preparing

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Governmental Abatement Action: $23,910.30 Fee Award To Winning City In Abatement Action Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

July 16, 2011

Consent Judgment Was Silent On Issue, Allowing For Fee Award. In City of Live Oak v. Oliveira, Case No. C063700 (3d Dist. July 15, 2011) (unpublished), City of Live Oak obtained civil penalties against three defendant trust properties in a nuisance abatement action. Even though the parties reached a consent judgment dealing with

Special Fee Shifting Statutes/In The News . . . . Beach Cities Collective Medical-Marijuana Dispensary Assessed With Attorney’s Fees Award To Go To Dana Point

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

July 14, 2011

“Crack House” Costs Provision is the Fee Entitlement Basis; Amount of Fee Award is $138,067.10. Well, California is well known as surfer paradise and also well known for its marijuana smoking population (residents who have or have not inhaled). In this vein, enjoy this one with us. Beach Cities Collective, a medical-marijuana