Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Second District, Division 4 Parts Company With Dicta in Yassin.      Under our category “Special Fee Shifting Statutes,” we have explored decisions examining the construction prompt payment statutes (most of which are contained in the Civil Code). For example, in Yassin v. Solis, 184 Cal.App.4th 524 (2010) [discussed in our May 7, 2010 post], […]

  Appellate Court Details Proper Application of Mir.      Business and Professions Code section 809.9 provides that the court shall award attorney’s fees “to a substantially prevailing party” in a peer review lawsuit “if the other party’s conduct in bringing, defending, or litigating the suit was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith.” In

First District, Division 3 Sustains Sonoma County Ordinance in Public Nuisance Action from Constitutional Attack.      Sonoma County was awarded $17,429.10 in attorney’s fees in a public nuisance action against unsuccessful defendants under Sonoma County Code section 1-7(b), which allows fees to a prevailing party in a public nuisance abatement action as long as fees

Third Appellate District Remands So Trial Court Can Determine Reasonable Fees for Employer Who Successfully Defended Against Alleged Failure to Provide Rest Periods.      The next case is all about entitlement to attorney’s fees under the Labor Code.  Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., No. C062306 (3rd District July 27, 2010) (published).      On appeal,

Second District, Division One Departs Company From Contrary Rutter Group Commentary.      In People ex rel. City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel, Case No. B214828 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 14, 2010) (certified for publication), a panel of the Second District departed from some Rutter Group treatise commentary, deciding that Business and Professions Code section