Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes – Page 49

Trade Secret Misappropriation: Sixth District Affirms $1,114,930 Attorney’s Fees Award To Defense For Bad Faith Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim

March 3, 2009

Court of Appeal Applies Gemini Bad Faith Test Under Civil Code Section 3426.4. Civil Code section 3426.4 is a special fee-shifting provision in the trade secret misappropriation area. It authorizes a trial court to make a discretionary award of fees and costs to the prevailing party “if a claim of misappropriation is made in […]

California Supreme Court Refuses To Depublish Bernardi Decision

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

February 21, 2009

Decision Affirming $244,287.50 Fee Award Under the California Public Records Act Remains Citable. We would like to thank Ina Bendis, an attorney practicing in Santa Clara and one of our readers, for an update on Bernardi v. County of Monterey, a Sixth District decision sustaining a $244,287.50 fee award in favor of plaintiffs and

Tree Injury: Successful Plaintiff Not Awarded Attorney’s Fees In Light Of Plaintiff’s Recovery Of Doubling “Penalty”

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

February 19, 2009

Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms Trial Court’s Discretionary Refusal to Award Fees. Trees seem to be a popular subject of dispute between neighbors, either because they are destroyed as part of new construction or because they block scenic views of the ocean/nearby canyons. There are some special penalty and fee-shifting provisions relating to

Shareholder Derivative Actions: Prevailing Defendants Must Look To Bond For Recovery Unless Independent Basis Exists For More Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

January 26, 2009

Fifth District Finds that Corporations Code Section 800 Is a Bond/Security Statute, Not Fee Liability Statute. The Fifth District, in West Hills Farms, Inc. v. RCO Ag Credit, Inc., Case No. F054748 (5th Dist. Jan. 26, 2009) (certified for partial publication), found that a prevailing defendant in a shareholder derivative action is limited to

Withdrawn Cross-Claim Subject to Fee Shifting Means No Prevailing Party Under Retention “Prompt Payment” Statute

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

January 16, 2009

Owners Did Not Prevail Because Contractor Withdrew Cross-Claim During Deposition and Never Pursued Recovery Under It. Courts like to encourage narrowing of disputes by litigants. The next case illustrates how a non-prevailing contractor avoided attorney’s fees exposure under Civil Code section 3260(g), which authorizes fees/costs to the prevailing party involving a claim that

Arbitration: Arbitrator’s Fee Award Modified By Appellate Court Based On Finding “No Anchor” For Fee Recovery

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

January 15, 2009

First District, Division 2 Demonstrates Appellate Scrutiny Of Basis For Fee Award. In past posts (see, e.g., our July 15, 2008 post on Patel v. Sagar), we have reviewed appellate decisions involving scrutiny of arbitration awards. Several decisions have affirmed arbitrator fee awards even though there was no clear basis, either by contract or

CCP Section 1021.4: Pedestrian Skater Sustains $90,000 Fee Award For Winning Jury Verdict Arising Out Of Drunk Driving Negotiated Criminal Settlement

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

January 14, 2009

Second District, Division Seven Also Finds That Defendant’s 998 Offer Was Too Uncertain to Enforce. The next case involves a personal injury case, involving an interesting discussion of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4’s fee-shifting provision and the uncertain nature of the defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer involving other litigation lurking

Ninth Circuit Amends Hubbard Decision In Light Of Molski

Cases: Preemption, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

January 12, 2009

ADA/CDPA Preemption Decision Is Amended Based on Later State Court Decision, With No Change in Result. In our July 3, 2008 post, we discussed Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, Case No. 06-56870 (9th Cir. 2008), which held that an award of attorney’s fees to defendant under the California Disabled Persons Act was preempted by the

Mandatory Fee Arbitration Settlement: Winning Party Reserved Right To Recover Fees and Did Obtain $120,000 In Fees And $7,097.99 In Costs From Losing Attorney

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

January 7, 2009

First District, Division Four Affirms Fee/Costs Award on Appeal. In our category “Cases: Settlement,” we have reviewed past decisions where parties have won substantial fee/costs awards after reserving the issue for future determination as part of a settlement in an underlying case. The next opinion is one arising from the settlement of a lawsuit

Wholesale Sales Representatives: Attorney’s Fees Are Available For You In Cases Where Commissions Are Willfully Not Paid

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

January 1, 2009

Fourth District, Division Two Construes the Scope of the California Independent Wholesale Sales Representative Contractual Relations Act. The California Independent Wholesale Sales Representative Contractual Relations Act (Civ. Code sections 1738.10-1738.16) was enacted to protect wholesale sales representatives—“any person who contracts with a manufacturer, jobber, or distributor for the purpose of soliciting wholesale orders, is