Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

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)

Scroll to Top