Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lodestar/Multiplier: 5 Employees Winning $40,000 Settlement For Labor Code Violations Are Awarded $164,421.16 In Statutory Fees and Costs

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

  Trial Court’s Lodestar Calculation and Failure to Apportion Were Correct.      For those of you practicing employment law, you know by now that many of the Labor Code sections involving wage/hour and meal break violations carry mandatory fee-shifting statutes generally favoring the prevailing plaintiff. Usually, the battle is how much, what if, once liability […]

Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Settlement Agreement Allowing For Patients’ Rights Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 6 Affirms $125,290 Fee Award in Action Where Plaintiff Settled For $126,000 on Various Counts.      Settlement agreements are generally enforced by their terms, especially where they involve enforcement of public policy fee-shifting statutes. The next case demonstrates this principle very well.      In Rodriguez v. Victoria Ventura Health Care LLC, Case

SLAPP: Court Of Appeal Sustains $42,593.75 Fees Award To Defendant In Affirming Case Involving The Megan’s Law Website

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Remand Also Ordered For Purposes of Awarding Appellate Defense Fees.      In Mendoza v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc., Case No. B214653 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2010) (certified for publication), the appellate court considered the collision of Megan’s Law and the SLAPP statute. Specifically, Megan’s Law has a provision prohibiting use

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Court Of Appeal Sustains Large Fee Recovery Against City Of Los Angeles Under Both California’s False Claims Act And Wrongful Retention Payment Statute

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 2 Finds Objective Test Governs Fee Recovery Under False Claims Act.      California’s False Claims Act has a fee-shifting provision, stating that a court may award a prevailing defendant its reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses against a state or political subdivision that proceeds with a false claim for payment claim if the

Civil Rights: EEOC Stung With $4,560,285.11 Fee/Costs Award In Title VII Section Suit Found To Be Groundless By Iowa U.S. District Judge

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

Court Discusses Substantive Fee Shifting Statute, Lodestar Factors, and Non-Cost Expense Reimbursement Issues in Recent Decision.       EEOC v. Boot, Case No. 07-CV-95-LLR (N.D. Iowa Feb. 9, 2010 Order), is an unusual decision where a United States district judge awarded $4,560,285.11 in fees and costs (broken down as $4,004,371.65 in fees, $463,071.25 in “non-cost”

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Chacon Opinion – Involving San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance – Is Published.

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       In our January 19, 2010 post, we examined Chacon v. Litke, Case Nos. A122026 & A123889 (1st Dist., Div. 2 published Feb. 8, 2010), which was unpublished at the time. This decision established that the lodestar analysis was the presumptive method for gauging special fee-shifting provisions, including those enacted under governmental ordinances. On

Rent Stabilization Ordinance: East Palo Alto Ordinance Does Not Allow For Fee Recovery in Actions Between Landlord And The City

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appellate Court Reverses Fee Award in Favor of Landlord.      Woodland Park Mgt., LLC v. City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Bd., Case No. A124154 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 1, 2010) (certified for publication) involved “prevailing party” fee recovery language in East Palo Alto’s Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance (RSO)

Partition: Trial Court Did Not Err In Awarding $95,267.41 In Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiff In Partition Action, Where Incurred For A “Common Benefit”

Cases: Equity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Sought $415,458.75 In Fees, But Trial Court Reductions and Apportionments Lowered Actual Award to $95,267.41.      In partition actions, Code of Civil Procedure section 874.010(a) authorizes an award of costs to include reasonable attorney’s fees that have been “incurred or paid by a party for the common benefit.” When you get into this area

Scroll to Top