Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Withdrawn Cross-Claim Subject to Fee Shifting Means No Prevailing Party Under Retention “Prompt Payment” Statute

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

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

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

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

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

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

FEHA Winning Supervisor Awarded Only $1 In Attorney’s Fees Because Non-Fee Garnering Employer Funded Winner’s Defense

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Buyer Of Used Car Awarded Attorney’s Fees Of $28,591.50 Under The Automobile Sales Finance Act

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Scroll to Top