Two Bills Enacted; One Vetoed Although a considerable segment of the state government's resources was consumed with general budgetary wrangling, two bills were enacted (effective January 1, 2009) and one bill vetoed with features involving attorney's fees/cost awards.
Second District, Division Eight Affirms Lower Court’s Discretion to Not Award Fees to Winning FEHA Defendant Where the Actual Beneficiary of the Award is Another Defendant Not Entitled to Fee Recoupment. In our December 11, 2008 post on Trisler, we discussed the FEHA fee-shifting statute, Government Code section 12965(b), and the leading case
Second District, Division Two Affirms Award and Acknowledges that Findings of Frivolousness Must Be Written/Specific in Nature. As we have noted in past posts on actions brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.), a court has discretion to award fees and costs to the prevailing party.
Court of Appeal Finds No Prejudice In the Sequence of Entry of the Fee Award. The Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA), in Civil Code section 2983.4, has a mandatory fee-shifting provision by which the prevailing party in any action on a contract or purchase subject to the ASFA must be awarded fees, “regardless of
District Judge Carter Awards Both Sides Fees Under the California Penal Code, the Communications Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This next one is an interesting illustration of how each side can prevail and be awarded fees/costs under state and federal statutes, yet how one side can still be the “net”
Third District, in Unpublished Decision, Affirms Fee Award Against Losing Plaintiff. Many of our past posts under the category “Cases: Civil Rights” tend to demonstrate that it is an unusual showing that results in fee exposure for a losing plaintiff in civil rights or Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code sec. 12940
Fourth District, Division One Remands Cause For Recalculation of Fee Award After Eliminating Punitive Damage Recovery on Appeal. We now have an interesting case for labor law practitioners. It centers upon Labor Code section 218.5, which provides that “[i]n any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, ….the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees
Fourth District, Division Three Reverses Wide-ranging Fee Award and Remands For Narrower Determination. We have seen the litigants in the next case before. (See our posts of June 2, 2008 and August 27, 2008, where the McMahons have suffered adverse fee awards and sanctions in a long-standing battle with a homeowners association.) Here,
Fourth District, Division Three Finds Plaintiffs Were Not Catalysts For Change So As To Be Entitled to Fees. Our fellow blawg “Cal Biz Lit” has an interesting post on November 21, 2008, discussing our local Fourth District, Division Three’s unpublished opinion in Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Case No. G038388 (4th Dist., Div. 3
Second District, Division One Sustains Denial of Fee Recovery Without Predicate Underpinnings for an Award. The first step of any analysis for recovery of fees is to locate a statute or contractual clause authorizing their recovery. Without this, the American Rule will usually preclude any efforts to recoup incurred attorney’s fees in litigation. The
