Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

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

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.     

FOIA POOF!: District Court’s Award of $146,442 To Prevailing FOIA Plaintiff Reversed In Light Of Partial Reversal of Summary Judgment Grant

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

District Court Will Reconsider Fees Upon Remand.      The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA), does contain a provision allowing district courts to award fees and costs to parties “substantially prevailing” as against the United States under the statute. (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).) This statute, upon which California’s Public Records Act is

998 Offers, CA Tort Claims and Civil Rights Fees: Second District, Division 1 Faces A Potpourri Of Legal Issues On A Hefty ADA Civil Rights Fee Award

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Unpublished Decision Faces Some Interesting Fee-Shifting Issues In ADA Case.      Many of the California intermediate appellate unpublished decisions we examine have some very interesting legal issues for jurists to grapple with and resolve. The next one is no exception, containing some gnarly fee-shifting issues that involve Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (pretrial offer

POOF!: Second District’s Reversal of Rent Control Ordinance Dispute Requires Remand To Reconsider Fee Awards

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s $719,000 Fees/Costs Award Goes POOF!      We have surveyed several decisions in our category “POOF” that illustrate the principle that many reversals (partial or in full) will require a reversal of a fee/costs award and remand to reconsider after the dust has finally settled on the reversed claims in subsequent trial court proceedings. That

Remedies, Fee Shifting Provisions and Settlement Efforts: Appellate Court Partially Reverses Based On Lack Of Privity But Sustains Other Fees In Complex Development Agreement Case

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division 1 “Multitasks” in Covering a Wide Gamut of Fee Issues in Recent Unpublished Opinion.      Here is a review of a complex and wild decision covering a myriad of remedy and fees issues in the context of City of Novato’s dispute with a developer and its successor over performance of two separate

FDCPA: Attorney’s Fees For “Bad Faith” Actions Cannot Be Assessed Against Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit Addresses First Impression Issue, Departing From Result Reached by Other Federal Courts.      The Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), at 15 U.S.C. section 1692k(a)(3), provides that a district judge may award to the defendant reasonable attorney’s fees on a finding that an FDCPA action was brought “in bad faith and for the

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Third District Affirms $29,674 Fee Award Against Sacramento County In A Contempt Proceeding To Enforce Injunction Abating A Nuisance

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Court of Appeal Enforces Faces the Conflict Between Civil Code Section 1717 and Government Code Section 25845(c).      Civil Code section 1717 is straightforward in allowing for mutual recovery of attorney’s fees in California by a prevailing party where a contractual clause so authorizes such a recovery. However, sometimes this provision seemingly comes into conflict

Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Financial Condition Of Indigent Litigant Is A Factor To Consider

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Seven 7 So Holds Under Civil Code Section 1354(c), But Splinters Badly in the Process.      We all know that fundamental access to the courts is more than just rhetoric; it is a bulwark of our whole legal system. This principle took “front and center” importance in the next case, where entitlement to

Scroll to Top