Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

  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

  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 July 15, 2011) (unpublished), City of Live Oak obtained civil penalties against three defendant trust properties in a nuisance abatement action.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

  “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

Civil Rights/Specific Fee Shifting Statute: $50,820 Fee Award Against Plaintiff Bringing Frivolous False Claim Act Action Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 6 Uses Analogous Federal Case Law in Reaching Result.      Under the False Claim Act (Gov Code, § 12650 et seq.), former section 12652(g)(9) provided that a trial court may award the prevailing defendant attorney’s fees if “the claim was clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought for purposes of harassment.” (Now, the

Civil Rights Two-Fer: Fee Awards Reversed And Affirmed In Two Different Contexts

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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 B224667/B225612 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2011) (unpublished).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,

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Our Local Santa Ana Court Of Appeal Considers CCP § 1029.8 Relating To Fee Recovery Against Unlicensed Professionals

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

In The News . . . . Burbank City Council Will Pay Fees/Costs to Newspaper Obtaining Individual Bonus Payout Information

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

  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.     

Specific Fee Shifting Statute/Allocation: Plaintiff Winning A Brown Act and Public Records Dispute Received $20,000 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Special Fee Shifting Statutes–Environmental: District Court Erred By Not Awarding At Least Some Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff Under Clean Water Act Section 505(d)

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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.”

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Obtaining Document Compliance Under California Public Record Act Denied Fee Request Of Over $117,000

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Scroll to Top