Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Lodestar: Lodestar Method Used To Determine Reasonable Fee Recovery to Prevailing Claimant In U.S. Civil Forfeiture Proceeding

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Prevailing Party/Special Fee Shifting Statute/Costs: Taxpayer Reaps $186,342.54 As Fee Recovery When Trial Court Remands Case Back For Assessment Board Base Tax Year Recalculation

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Taxation

  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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $74,402.35 Costs Award In Carrier Apportionment Battle Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Payment Bond Statute Allows Recovery Of Fee Award Of Successful Sub-Subcontractor From Surety

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Special Fee Shifting: Qui Tam Claimant Whacked With $300,000 Fee Award Under Arizona Fee Shifting Statute Did Not Obtain Reversal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  District Judge Did Not Award Fees Under Federal Sanctioning Authority.      In Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., Case Nos. 09-16181/09-16607 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2011) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $300,000 fee award against a qui tam plaintiff who lost a contract claim and had a history of litigation abuse

Equity: Fees In Partition Action For “Common Benefit” Allowable, Apportioned To Each Party’s Interest In Real Estate

Cases: Equity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Court Reversed Award of Accountant Fees Against One Party, Deciding Interest Apportionment of Expenses Was Proper.      In the equity arena, partition is the procedure for segregating or terminating common interests in the same parcel of property, as where property is held jointly or by tenants in common. California has a statutory scheme

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Chino Municipal Ordinance’s Fee Provision Supported Substantial Fee Award Against Verizon

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

  $185,674.22 Fee Award and $12,829 Costs Award Sustained on Appeal.      Chino Municipal Code section 12.02.030 provides that any applicant (usually a telecommunications company obtaining an encroachment permit) failing to restore city or private property to the like or better condition after any encroachment damages “shall be liable for all costs to restore same

Scroll to Top