Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Lodestar/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Lodestar, Not Cost-Plus Method, Governs Fee Recovery Under Special Red Light Abatement Fee Shifting Statute

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  First District, Division 4 Finds McCullough Reasoning Inapt; Also Refuses to Upset Cost Award to City in Separate Appeal.      In City of Santa Rosa v. Patel, Case Nos. A124199/A124452 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 21, 2010) (certified for publication), City of Santa Rosa prevailed in a red light abatement action and was awarded

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Losing Civil Embezzlement Case, Who Later Pleads No Contest In Criminal Case, Ordered To Make $122,225 In Restitution To Former Employer

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$77,750 of Restitution Order Consisted of Attorney’s Fees.      Penal Code section 1202.4(f) is a very specialized fee-shifting statute under which a trial court in a criminal case can order a defendant to reimburse a third party for costs incurred in proving the criminal act (such as reimbursing a former employer for fees and costs

Scroll to Top