Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 A122026 & A123889 (1st Dist., Div. 2 published Feb. 8, 2010), which was unpublished at the time.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

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.

Scroll to Top