Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Deadlines, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes And In The News: Good Good Good Vibrations on Appeals—Depends on Your Point of View . . .

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

Sanctuary Records Group Seeks Appellate Attorney’s Fees After Defensing Right Of Publicity/Lanham Act Claims Against Beach Boys Writer Mike Love Katy Perry Create a Stir With Ending Lines in Hit “California Gurls.”      Sanctuary Records Group Ltd. defensed Mike Love, one of the writers for “The Beach Boys,” in a lawsuit alleging right of publicity/Lanham

Special Fee Shifting County Ordinance: County Fee Shifting Ordinance Is Constitutionally Valid

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Third District Romps Around The Labor Code’s Bases For Recovery of Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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,

Appealability: Interlocutory Order in Partition Action Finding Party Prevailed and Incurred Attorney’s Fees for the Common Benefit was Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Div. 4, Explains that Interlocutory Judgment Determing Interests of the Parties and Ordering Partition is Appealable – But Interlocutory Order Finding a Party Prevailed and Incurred Costs and Attorney’s Fees for the Common Benfit of the Parties is Not Appealable.      In Alaeddin Enayati v. Hessamedin Enayati, B213264 (2nd Dist., Div. 4 July

SLAPP And Lanham Act: Jim Brown Does Not Incur Attorney’s Fees Exposure In False Exploitation Federal Case

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  No Fees Under SLAPP or Lanham Act Fee Shifting Provisions.      Well, everyone knows about James “Jim” Brown, maybe the best professional football running back of all time. In the next case, Jim Brown dodged fee exposure under the Lanham Act and under California’s SLAPP statute.      He brought a false exploitation of image

Scroll to Top