Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CCP § 1038 Whacks Losing Litigant With Defense Costs Of $67,644.30 In Favor Of City Of Fullerton

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fourth District, Division Sustains Finding That Suit Was Unmeritorious, Frivolous Litigation.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1038 is a potent fee-shifting statute allowing public entities a way to recover the costs of defending against unmeritorious and frivolous litigation. (Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center, 19 Cal.4th 851, 857 (1998).) In relevant

SLAPP: Attorney’s Fees Awards Under SLAPP And Harassment Injunction Statute Affirmed

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Challenging Plaintiff Did Not Show Specificity in Padding, Duplication, or Unrelatedness Arguments To Support Fee Reduction.      To our dear readers after Thanksgiving, here is a case with excellent reminders about steps you should take when challenging lower court fee awards. Make sure that you make specific challenges, not just arguments, supported with declarations from

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals Formulates Definition of “Exceptional Cases” Predicate For Awarding Attorney’s Fees Under The Lanham Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Circuit Judge Posner Tackles the Jumble of Standards Utilized by Federal Circuit Courts.      For those readers who practice intellectual property law (especially under the Lanham Act), we commend for reading Circuit Judge Posner’s recent decision in Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 4721581 (7th Cir. Nov. 23, 2010).

Scroll to Top