Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Post-Hardt, District Courts In the Ninth Circuit Must Use Hummell Factors To Determine Entitlement To Attorney’s Fees By ERISA Litigant

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2025127 (U.S. May 24, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that an ERISA litigant does not have to “prevail,” but still must achieve some degree of success on the merits before being entitled to an attorney’s fees award under the ERISA fee-shifting statute, […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes—Construction Prompt Payment: Fee Award To Contractor Under Prompt Payment Statutes Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division 1 Sustains Fee Recovery of Over $381,000 Against Owners.      W. Wong Construction Co., Inc. v. Watt, Case Nos. A122409, A12327 & A124295 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2010) (unpublished) is a case where a contractor obtained damages and a hefty $381,000-plus in attorney’s fees against owners under the construction prompt

Federal Fee Shifting Awards: U.S. Magistrate Judge In Northern California Awards $800,000 In Attorney’s Fees To Defendant Under CAN-SPAM Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fees Were Appropriate By Analogy to Similar Fee Shifting Provision of the Copyright Act.      In 2003, Congress passed CAN-SPAM Act, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act. Now, a United States District Magistrate Judge has awarded defendant attorney’s fees of over $800,000 under a fee shifting/sanctions provision of the CAN-SPAM Act.

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Award Of Partial Fees To Winning Defendants In Statutory Action For Injunctive Relief Under CCP § 527.6(i)

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Trial Court Appropriately Apportioned Out Fee Work Unrelated to Statutory Injunctive Relief Claim.      Generally, no award of attorney’s fees is available in an invasion of privacy action. However, in a statutory action for injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(i) (a statutory harassment/violence statute), the prevailing party may be awarded court costs

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fee Recovery Under Business and Professions Code Section 809.9 Remanded For Determination If Losing Party Acted In Bad Faith

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 8 Reverses $45,728.75 Fee Award Against Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center, But Remands For Bad Faith Determination.      Business and Professions Code section 809.9, a specialized fee shifting provision, provides that in any suit brought to challenge an action taken or a restriction imposed which must be reported to the California Medical

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: U.S. Supreme Court Decides That ERISA Fee Recovery Does Not Depend On “Prevailing Party” Status

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  No Merits Judgment Necessary, Says Unanimous High Court.     In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., Case No. 09-448 (U.S. May 24, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) gives district courts discretion to award fees to either party, even

Non-Taxable Federal Costs: District Courts Can Award Non-Taxable Costs Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit So Holds in 2-1 Decision; Dissent Thinks Majority Decision Allows Recovery of Non-Taxable Costs as Attorney’s Fees in Most Fee-Shifting Statutes.      The next case is an interesting one, provoking a 2-1 decision on an important issue: when are non-taxable costs awardable as attorney’s fees under federal fee-shifting statutes. The question did not

Construction Prompt Payment Statutes: Last Contractual Installment Payment Is Not A Retention Giving Rise To Attorney’s Fees Under Civil Code Section 3260(g)

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 5 Also Rules that Fee Recovery Does Not Have to be Pled and that Civil Code Section 3260.1 Does Not Authorize a Fee Award.      We have done some past posts on California’s construction prompt payment statutes, designed to insure that retention payments are not wrongfully withheld by owners or other construction

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act: Van Skike And Christensen Followed In Recent Ninth Circuit Unpublished Memorandum Decision

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  ALJ Determination Based On Lower Fee Rates From Prior LHWCA Cases Rejected by Ninth Circuit.      In our March 9, 2009 post, we explored two Ninth Circuit companion opinions, Van Skike v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 557 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2009) and Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. Of Am., 557 F.3d 1049

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Mobilehome/RV Fee Shifting Statutes Apply To More Than Just Landlords Or Tenants

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fees Appropriately Awarded Against Landlord’s Agents Under Two Statutes.      Civil Code section 798.85 of the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) and Civil Code section 799.78 of the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (RVPOL) both contain fee shifting provisions stating that a “prevailing party shall be entitled” to attorney’s fees “[i]n any action arising out of

Scroll to Top