Causation Issue Is Decided Under Substantial Evidence Review Standard. The next case involves a dispute under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which does allow recovery of fees by a “prevailing” plaintiff. (Gov’t Code, § 6259(d).) The next case, where a CPRA petitioner was denied fees, demonstrates two things: (1) how government entities should […]
Second District, Division One, Does Remand For Proper Expense/Fee Determination and For Examination of Allocation Issues. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare, 24 Cal.4th 83, 110-113 (2000) determined that arbitral expenses beyond what a plaintiff litigant would have borne in a court case cannot be imposed in cases involving statutory rights enacted for a public
Effect of New Law Explored in Steven Riess’ Article in August 2009 California Lawyer. For those attorney readers practicing in the elder abuse area, there is an excellent article that is must reading in the August 2009 edition of California Lawyer. It is authored by Steven Riess and is entitled “Combating Financial Abuse of
Ninth Circuit Explains Standards for Collecting Fees under Clean Water Act. The next case involves alphabet soup: GCMAD, NPDES, EPA, CWA, and the spraying of adulticides. Translation: Gem County Mosquito Abatement District, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water Act, and the spraying of pesticides used to kill adult mosquitoes.
Summary Judgment Affirmed, and Fees Properly Awarded For Bringing Torts Claim Without Basis. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038, when a defendant in a case brought under the Torts Claim Act prevails on summary judgment, the defendant may obtain an award of attorney’s fees if the trial court determines the action was not
First District, Division 4 Determines FTB Was Substantially Justified in Defending Case. In a lawsuit against the State of California (including the Franchise Tax Board) for a tax refund, a prevailing taxpayer may be awarded attorney’s fees unless the State of California “establishes that its position in the proceeding was substantially justified.” (Rev. &
Co-contributor Mike Was Co-Trial and Co-Appellate Counsel in Case. Co-contributor Mike did not want to do this post; co-contributor Marc told him to do it. Just to show you that Mike is not that cantankerous, Marc won on this one. In our May 19, 2008 post, we looked at a special fee-shifting
Ninth Circuit Determines 2007 Catalyst Amendments Are Not Retroactive in Nature. Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, a complainant in a FOIA action is deemed to be eligible for an award of attorney’s fees if he has “substantially prevailed” on his claim. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (prior to 2007 amendments).
Nontestimonial Expert Costs Cannot Be Recouped Under FLSA. A colleague that co-contributor Mike worked with at a past law firm called and asked if expert witness fees for nontestimonial work were recoverable by a plaintiff in an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), given that 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
Fees Can Be Awarded Under Labor Code section 98.2(c). An employer is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, in an amount to be determined by the trial court, when an employee unsuccessfully appeals from a Labor Commissioner’s ruling to the trial court. (Lab. Code sec. 98.2(c).) Cooper v. Golden Gate Reporters, LLC,
