Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Allocation: To Apportion Or Not To Apportion . . . . That Is The Question

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

If Trial Court Determines Common Facts Overlap Compensable and Noncompensable Claims for Fee Recovery, Usually Treated as Discretionary Exercise Upon Appellate Review.      In Conservatorship of McQueen (Taye v. Drumgoole), Case No. A126825 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 14, 2011) (unpublished), family attorney and other defendants were found liable for financial elder abuse, concealment, conversion, […]

Arbitration/Construction Prompt Payment Statute: Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Fee Recovery Allowable For Withholding Progress Payments To Contractor

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Court of Appeal Agrees With Reasoning in Hinerfeld-Ward.      Plaintiff contractor sued defendant owner for breach of contract, mechanic’s lien foreclosure, violation of the Civil Code section 3260.1 prompt payment statute relating to withheld progress payments, promissory fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud. The case was arbitrated, with plaintiff eventually awarded $245,763.09 in damages against

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Appeal Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Affirms $78,109.65 Lanham Act Bad Faith Fee/Costs Award

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal Denied For Lack of Separate Motion and More.      In Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., Case No. 10-35388 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2011) (for publication), the district court determined that a litigant had acted in bad faith so that $78,109.95 in attorney’s feees and costs should be assessed against him

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Appellate Sanctions: Losing Plaintiff In Civil Harassment Case Hit With $1,000 In Attorney’s Fees And $1,000 In Additional Appellate Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Defendant Was Victor Both Below and On Appeal.      In our March 25, 2009 post, we explored Krug v. Maschmeier, 172 Cal.App.4th 796 (2009), which held that a winning defendant in a civil harassment proceeding could be awarded attorney’s fees in the discretion of the lower court. Now, an appellate decision has applied this

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statutes/Lodestar/Multiplier/Costs/Standard Of Review: Lower Court Did Abuse Discretion In Awarding Certain Expenses As Fees, In Failing To Allocate, And In Applying A Multiplier

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

Abuse of Discretion Standard Did Not Prevent Reversal When Record Showed Errors, According to Sixth District.      In an interesting contrast to the way the abuse of discretion standard was deferentially applied in our contemporaneous post in Murrell v. Rolling Hills Community Association, the Sixth District found that the trial court abused its discretion in

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Teacher’s Win Under Education Code Section 44942 Does Not Guarantee Fee Win Under Education Code Section 44944(e)(2)

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Third District Affirms Fee Denial in Technical Education Code Area.      Okay, folks. We told you early on in this blog we would cater to all areas. We hold true to our promise, summarizing a recent decision from the Third District on a fee-shifting provision contained in Education Code section 44944(e)(2), which contains a mandatory

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Losing Patent Plaintiff’s Case Was Not Exceptional So As To Warrant Adverse Fee Award As Sanctions

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Federal Circuit Reversed $660,351.93 Fee Award to Google.      Here is an interesting patent decision where a substantial fee award of $660,351.93 to Google was reversed by the Federal Circuit.      In iLOR, LLC v. Google, No. 2010-1117, 1172 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2011), Google moved to recover fees and costs from a losing

In The News . . . . U.S. District Court Judge Awards Over $2.5 Million In Fees And Costs To Lawyers Representing Two Plaintiffs In U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Case

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

Two Plaintiff Attorneys Awarded Damages of $20,400 Each.      As reported by Julia Cheever of Bay City News in the online version of SFAppeal on December 21, 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California earlier had awarded two plaintiffs affiliated with an Islamic charity foundation (who happened to be attorneys)

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Decision Fees Decisions–Part 2 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions.      10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post.      Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Fees Decisions In 2010–Part 1 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Equity, Cases: Probate, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 998, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     Above:  Wrapping It Up.       As we wish all readers the happiest of Holidays, we now present our top 20 published decisions from California appellate courts or the Ninth Circuit. This list is not meant to slight other important decisions in certain areas, but these are the ones that “rose to the top” from

Scroll to Top