Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Newspaper Petitioner Gaining Redacted And Then Unredacrted Documents Under California Public Records Act Denied Fee Award

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Third District Finds Good Faith of Agency in Releasing Redacted Documents Expeditiously Militated Against Award.      California Public Records Act, Government Code section 6259, mandates attorney’s fees to a “prevailing” petitioner. However, even though the law is clear, the next case demonstrates that many (if not most) cases are factually dependent, with the circumstances […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Discretionary Harassment Restraining Order Grant Of Fee Recovery Reversed

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Winning Defendant Failed to Comply With Statutory Requirements for Claiming Fees.      Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(i) certainly permits a trial court discretion to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party when a civil harassment restraining order is sought. (Krug v. Maschmeier, 172 Cal.App.4th 796, 802-803 (2009).) However, a prevailing defendant must still follow

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Retained P.E. Teacher Had To Follow Normal Fee/Costs Procedures For Timely Claiming Costs Under Education Code Section 44944

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division 2 Upheld Trial Court Decision to Award Some Fees and Costs to Teacher, But Not All of Them.      Well, we report on all areas of the law. This one is a curious case, where a teacher untimely filed for fees and costs, but the trial court cut teacher a break and

ERISA And Routine Costs: District Judges Retain Discretion To Award Or Deny Costs To Prevailing ERISA Parties Under FRCP 54(d)(1)

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit Remands For District Judge to Determine Whether Costs Should Be Awarded Under Rule 54(d)(1).      Resolving a split among federal district courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., Case No. 09-56190 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010) (for publication), decided that a prevailing party in an ERISA action

Substantiation Of Fees Under Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Court Of Appeal Overturns Trial Court’s Reconsideration Of Fees Request Where No Supporting Evidence Presented In Initial Fee Request Papers

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Third District Finds Reconsideration Was Erroneous and Finds No Basis for CCP § 473 Relief.      Here is a case that segues well with what we have advocated in many prior posts: when you prepare fee requests, make sure your papers provide the lower court with a roadmap, and a roadmap supported by competent evidence

Special Fee Shifting Statute: L.A. Rent Stabilization Ordinance Still Allows Trial Judge To Award Fees Under Unlimited Jurisdictional Amount ($25,000) In Its Discretion

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$25,575 Fee Recovery for Case in Which $11,590 Recovered Is Affirmed on Appeal.      Do not think that everything is lost when you win a case in unlimited jurisdiction court but your recovery is still less than the jurisdictional limit. The trial court still has discretion to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $100 Fee Award Against Criminal Defendant Under Penal Code Section 987.8 Reversed

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Reversal Hinged Upon Court’s Failure to Determine Ability to Pay.      Here is a case that focuses on a very special fee-shifting statute: Penal Code section 987.8, which provides that a criminal defendant provided with public legal assistance may, at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, be ordered to reimburse the county for attorney’s

Prompt Payment Statutes: Despite Ambiguous Statutory Language, Court Of Appeal Determines Attorney’s Fees Are Available To Prevailing Party Determining Under Civil Code Section 3260.1(b)

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],

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fifth District Clarifies Bad Faith Standard Of Business And Professions Code Section 809.9

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Special Fee-Shifting Statutes: Ninth Circuit Reverses Attorney’s Fees Awards in Echostar/NDS Case

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reversal is a $22 Million Swing for the Corporate Litigants.      In our December 11, 2008 post, we reported on C.D. Cal. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter’s fee awards in EchoStar Satellite Corp. v. NDS Group PLC, Case No. 8:03-cv-00950-DOC-JTL. There, EchoStar was awarded $12,972,547.91 in fees and NDS was awarded $8,968,118.90 in fees

Scroll to Top