Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act: Van Skike And Christensen Followed In Recent Ninth Circuit Unpublished Memorandum Decision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

Assessment Lien Foreclosure: Streets And Highway Code Special Fee-Shifting Provision Does Not Require Fees To Be Taken Out of Excess Sale Proceeds

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Taxation

  Fourth District, Division 2 Construes Arcane Provision, Streets and Highways Code Section 8831.      Streets and Highways Code section 8831 provides that costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, are fixed by the court for costs incurred by a city in pursuing a foreclosure action for unpaid assessments to repay bonds for improvements such as sewers.

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

Scroll to Top