Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Municipal Ordinance Fee Shifting Provision Resulted In $202,144.17 Fee Award To Winning Adjoining Neighbors In Tree Obstruction View Dispute

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Oakland Municipal Ordinance Did Justify Fee Award to Winners.      This one is a case that could have fallen under our category “Homeowners Association,” although it involved adjoining neighbors who got into a fight over trees obstructing a view corridor to the San Francisco Bay (as contrasted to homeowners versus a homeowners association controversy

Employment/Special Fee Shifting Statute (Pen. Code, § 502)/Reasonableness Of Fees/Allocation/Substantiation Of Fees: $980,373.50 Fee Award To Ex-Employee Not Paid All His Promised Commissions And Subject To Personal Computer Tampering Affirmed On App

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Appellate Court Found Lower Court Correct to View L.A. Attorneys As Within San Bernardino Venue and Necessary Given Earlier Misfortunes with Local Attorneys.      Trealoff v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. E048818 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2011) (unpublished) was a case where an ex-employee won sizable jury verdicts, including punitive damages, for

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $2,000 Attorney’s Fees Cap To Prevailing Parties On Motions To Expunge Stale Mechanic’s Liens Has Been Lifted Effective July 1, 2012

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Senate Bill 189 Amendments Made This Happen.      Every practitioner involved with mechanic’s liens should hopefully know, by now (or by reading this blog), that there are many changes made to the mechanic’s lien law by Senate Bill 189, some taking effect this year and some on July 1, 2012.      One of July

Civil Rights/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Losing Adverse Elder Abuse Claim and FEHA Cross-claim Properly Hit With $1.312 Million Fee Order

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  She Lost Elder Abuse Claim by Plaintiff and Did Not Prevail on Her Frivolous FEHA Sexual Harassment Cross-claim.      Bad facts can result in large jury verdicts; they also tend to guide the dispositon of the trial judge when it comes to awarding attorney’s fees against the non-prevailing litigant. That is what happened in

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Winning Harassment Protective Order Properly Denied Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Lower Court’s Discretionary Refusal Was Not Erroneous.      Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 does give a lower court discretionary authority to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in a harassment order proceeding.      In Quiggle v. Franke, Case No. D057982 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 16, 2011) (unpublished), the lower court did

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Frivolous Counterclaim By Franchisee Defending Against Franchisor Suit Opened Up Franchisee To Fee Exposure Under Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Defense Alone Would Not Result in Fee Exposure, but Frivolous Counterclaim Did Open Up Exposure.      Under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), a franchisee can be subjected to an attorney’s fees award in favor of a franchisor if franchisee brought a frivolous PMPA action. (15 U.S.C. § 2805(d).) However, what happens if the

Special Fee Shifting Provision/Attorney General Statute: Apple’s Tax Refund Win Did Not Entitle It To Recovery Of $683,492.73

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Court of Appeal Affirms Fee Denial Under Special Shifting Provision and Private Attorney General Statute.      After winning a tax refund issue relating to California tax treatment of repatriated dividends paid by certain of its subsidiaries, Apple, Inc. moved to recover attorney’s fees of $683,492.73 from the State on two independent grounds. The trial

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

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Tort of Another

  $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

Scroll to Top