Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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      We learned from an unpublished order in the next case that according to a recent American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association survey, “the average patent infringement suit with between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

Mike And Marc’s Top Twenty Decisions For 2009

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Part 2 of 2: Second Ten Grouping—Nos. 1-10.      We already gave you our top 11-20 decisions previously this month.      As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of

Marc And Mike’s Top Twenty Decisions For 2009

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Social Security, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Part 1 of 2: First Ten Grouping—Nos. 11-20.      As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of the decision. Rather, we try to survey decisions of interest in different

EAJA: Ninth Circuit Reverses Fee Award Because Various Federal Court Actions Were Not Equivalent To Judicially Sanctioned Relief

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Temporary Stay, Magistrate Tentative Summary Judgment Ruling, and Dismissal Based on Ripeness/Mootness Did Not Justify Fee Award.      The prevailing party in a dispute governed by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412, is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees if the party achieved “a material alteration in the legal

Public Construction Prompt Payment Statutes: Winning Contractor, Surety, And Bonding Company Entitled To $150,000 In Fees After Prevailing Against Losing Subcontractor

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Third District’s Affirmance of Prompt Payment Statute Result Ices Correctness of Fee Award.      In one of our past posts (see January 16, 2009 discussion of the unpublished decision of Li v. Wu), we briefly discussed one of the construction prompt payment statutes. The Legislature has enacted several “prompt payment” statutes designed to make sure

Res Judicata: Trial Court Awarding Fees To Director Under Corporate Indemnification Statute Reversed On Res Judicata Grounds

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Prior Adjudication Precluded the Subsequent Award.      In South Bay Rod and Gun Club v. Dashiell, Case No. D053658 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 4, 2009) (unpublished), director/real estate broker won a lawsuit against non-profit Club over a real estate option transaction. Winning director then sought fees in connection with his slander of title claim

Civil Rights: ADA Total Fee Recovery Denial Reversed Where Trial Court Incorrectly Concluded That Plaintiff’s Fee-Driven Recovery Required Altogether Fee Denial

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division 3 Reverses and Remands, But Does Allow Consideration of How Fee-Driven Motivation Impacts Reasonableness of Fee Request.      In the civil rights area, the American Disabilities Act (ADA) does have a mandatory fee-shifting provision in favor of prevailing plaintiffs, although it has the important caveat that only reasonable fees should be awarded.

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Hit With Attorney’s Fees Under The State Public Safety Officers Procedural Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Inoperability of CCP Section 128.6 Does Not Impact Defendants’ Ability to Award Fee Recovery Under POBR’s Fee-Shifting Provision.      California’s Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBR) (Gov. Code sec. 3300 et seq.), which has certain safeguards for police persons, does provide for an award of attorney’s fees against a party who brings a

Scroll to Top