First District, Division 5 Reverses Fee Award Based on Woodland Park Decision. In our February 2, 2010 post on Woodland Park Management, LLC v. City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Bd., 181 Cal.App.4th 915 (2010), we reviewed a decision reversing a fee award against the City of East Palo Alto under the Rent […]
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”
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 A122026 & A123889 (1st Dist., Div. 2 published Feb. 8, 2010), which was unpublished at the time.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
Ninth Circuit Finds Government Reliance on Expert Opinion Not Tantamount to Misconduct. Here is a rare one for you federal criminal practitioners. The Hyde Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, permits the court to award attorney’s fees to a defendant in a criminal prosecution where the government has acted in a manner that was
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)
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
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.
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
“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.
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),
