Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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Fourth District, Division 1 “Multitasks” in Covering a Wide Gamut of Fee Issues in Recent Unpublished Opinion.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

Mobilehome Residency Law: Fees Awardable To Prevailing Party Even If He/She Is Not A “Homeowner”

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

  First District, Division 5 Interprets Civil Code Section 798.85 Fee-Shifting Provision.      Civil Code section 798.85 is a special fee-shifting provision arising under the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL, Civil Code section 798 et seq). It provides: “In any action arising out of the provisions of this chapter the prevailing party shall be entitled to

Prevailing Party In U.S. Tax Proceeding: 26 U.S.C. Section 7430 Allows Award Of Fees To Prevailing Party Even Though Paid By A Third Party

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Noncontingent Obligation to Repay Fees or Contingent Obligation to Repay In Event of Recovery Justifies Fee Award Under Section 7430, the Ninth Circuit Rules.      The U.S. Tax Code, 26 U.S.C. section 7430(a), (c), permits a discretionary award of litigation costs, including attorney’s fees paid or incurred for attorney services, to the prevailing party in

Longshoremen: Ninth Circuit Departs From Other Circuits On Fee Entitlement During “Pre-controversion” Time Frame

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Federal Court of Appeals Refuses to Follow Contrary Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuit Decisions on the Issue.      For all you attorneys specializing in practice under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), the next one is for you.      LHWCA section 928 provides that under certain circumstances employers must pay a “reasonable attorney’s

ADA: Reversal Of Lawsuit Based On Lack Of Standing Requires Vacating Of Monetary Sanctions

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Sanctions Order.      In an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) case, a district judge dismissed a lawsuit based on plaintiff’s lack of standing and imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel for bringing a frivolous case. The Ninth Circuit reversed the standing determination, which also meant that the sanctions

Scroll to Top