Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

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

Scroll to Top