Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 A122026 & A123889 (1st Dist., Div. 2 published Feb. 8, 2010), which was unpublished at the time.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

Rent Stabilization Ordinance: Winning Plaintiffs In Wrongful Eviction Action Awarded $306,321.50 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lodestar Is the Standard, and Attorney Still Entitled to Lodestar Fees Even Where Client Agreement Was Below Market or Discounted in Nature. The lodestar method is the one used most often by trial courts in awarding both attorney’s fees under contractual provisions and fee-shifting statutes. What about county ordinances containing fee-shifting sections? Answer: lodestar also.

Civil Rights: CCP § 1038 Does Not Apply To Unsuccessful 1983 Civil Rights Claims

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division 4 So Decides, Also Denying Fees on a Different Theory Raised After Losing the § 1038 Request—Counseling to Seek Fees on Multiple Grounds the First Time Around.      State entities eventually defended against a civil rights claim brought by a peace officer organization under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. State entities then moved

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Failure To File Certificate Of Merit Did Not Give Rise To Fee Recovery Where Indemnity Cross-Complainant Had Obtained Expert Opinion Before Filing Cross-Complaint

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

“No Harm, No Foul” Means No Real Reason to Award Fees Under a Discretionary Statute.      For those of you who litigate construction actions, you likely are familiar with the requirement that indemnity cross-complainants must file a certificate of merit—after obtaining a favorable expert opinion—in cross-claims filed against professional engineers, architects, or surveyors. (Code Civ.

FEHA And CCP § 1033(a): The California Supreme Court Has Spoken—Trial Courts Have Discretion To Deny Or Dramatically Reduce Fee Awards Where FEHA Judgment In Superior Court Was Under the $25,000 Jurisdictional Limit

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  No Abuse of Discretion in Denying Fees Altogether Where Plaintiff Awarded $11,500 But Requested $870,935.50 In Fees.      In Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S162313 (Cal.Sup.Ct. Jan. 14, 2010) (certified for publication), our state supreme court faced the collision of two statutory schemes: the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA),

Finding that Plaintiff’s Actions and Omissions Were "Exceptional" in Patent Lawsuit, USDC Judge Gary Feess Awards Substantial Fees to Defendant

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

  Feess on Fees:  Award Equals $779,100.34 in Fees, $11,769.20 in Expenses, and $28,776.49 in Other Costs.      We learned from an unpublished order in the next case that according to a recent American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association survey, “the average patent infringement suit with between $1 million and $25 million at stake costs $1.794

Insurance Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Consumer Interest Intervener Entitled To Fee Compensation For Upholding Amended Regulations Under Insurance Code Section 1861.10(b)

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$121,848.16 Compensation Award to Intervener Upheld on Appeal.      In a very scholarly opinion, Presiding Justice Mallano—on behalf of a 3-0 panel—upheld a $121,848.16 compensation award (including attorney’s fees) to a consumer interest intervener in an unsuccessful challenge to certain amended regulations made by insurance companies. The basis for the award was Insurance Code section

Scroll to Top