Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes – Page 47

Elder Abuse: Senate Bill 1140, Effective January 1, 2009, Strengthens Elder Abuse Protections And Has Fee-Shifting Impetus

August 15, 2009

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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Stung by District Court’s Denial of Fees, Appellant Gets Some Relief from Ninth Circuit in Mosquito Spraying Case

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

August 10, 2009

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.

Special-Fee Shifting Statute: $83,545 Attorney’s Fees Award Affirmed As Against Losing Employee And In Favor Of Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

July 18, 2009

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

Special Fee-Shifting Statute In Taxpayer Dispute: Appellate Court Reverses $220,000 Fee Award In Taxpayer’s Favor As Against Franchise Tax Board

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Taxation

July 18, 2009

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. &

Update on 2008 Blog: Second District, Division 6 Affirms Judgment, Including $319,097.50 Fee Award In Citrus Farmer Litigation

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

July 16, 2009

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

FOIA: No Fees Recoverable Where Documents Voluntarily Turned Over Before 2007 Amendments

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

July 8, 2009

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).

FLSA: Expert Witness Fees Not Recoverable As Attorney’s Fees Or Costs

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

July 6, 2009

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)

Labor Commissioner Appeals: Employer Wins $10,000 Fee Award Against Unsuccessful Ex-Employee

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

June 27, 2009

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,

Special Fee Shifting Statute: California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Does Allow For Enhancement of Fee Awards Using Multipliers

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

June 25, 2009

First District, Division 1 Holds that Civil Code section 1788.30(c) Language Does Not Preclude Use of Multipliers. Civil Code section 1788.30(c), part of the Robbins-Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, allows a prevailing debtor enforcing any liability under the Act to recover “reasonable attorney’s fees, which shall be based on time necessarily expended to

Contempt Proceedings: $67,392.84 Fee Award For Contempt In Disobeying Injunction Reversed

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

June 25, 2009

Third District Affirms Contempt Order, But Reverses Fee Order On Due Process Grounds. For those of you having an interest in contempt proceedings (which are quasi-criminal in nature), the next case is for you. It also reinforces that fee awards must be crafted with regard to giving an opponent adequate due process rights.