Second District, Division Six Sustains Award under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a) provides for an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff where the defendant has been found liable for financial elder abuse under section 15610.30. […]
Court of Appeal Also Determines that Settlement Ambiguity Allows Homeowners An Opportunity to Seek More Fees for Sustaining Result on Appeal. A mobilehome park owner increased rent to homeowners in the mobilehome park to recoup the costs of capital expenditures. Following an arbitration, settlement, and lawsuit alleging noncompliance with the arbitration
Appellate Panel Finds No Basis for Fee Award Because District Did Not Violate “Prompt Payment” Penalty Statute. Public Contract Code section 7107 is a “prompt payment” statute specifying consequences for a public agency that withholds retention proceeds from a general contractor. It basically provides that a public agency may withhold from
Ninth Circuit Reminds Us of Federal Fee-Shifting Provision in Remanding Case on Appeal. In Pannebecker v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, Case No. 06-16654 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2008), the Ninth Circuit remanded an ERISA case after determining that the appellant did establish rights to benefits for a period of
Answer: Yes, in FEHA and CCP 1021.5 Situations. Generally, attorneys must file an independent collection action or enforce a contractual attorney’s lien in order to collect fees from an obstinate client, especially a client that will not allow an attorney to file a fee recovery motion against the non-prevailing side. (See,
Second District, Division Six Case Illustrates the Need to Have a Fee Entitlement Predicate for Recovery of an Attorney’s Fees Award. Mobile home purchasers sued mobile home dealer and installer, with the jury awarding plaintiffs $36,275 each against the dealer (based on breach of contract) and the installer (for negligence). The
Federal Court of Appeals Find That Some Junior Attorney Work Was Not Distinctive and That Plaintiffs Needed to Show Attorneys Were Not Available to Work at Lower Hourly Rates. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412), prevailing parties in cases brought by or against the United States
Second District, Division One Affirms and Reverses Portions of Fee Award Under Contractual Provision and Discretionary Fee-Shifting Statutes. By now, it should be apparent that there are stark differences in how some fee-shifting statutes operate. Civil Code section 1717 mandates an award to a "prevailing party" under a contractual fees clause,
Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Mean A Winning Litigant “Prevails” for Purposes of the Fee Entitlement Statute. Under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a court may award reasonable attorney’s fees “to a prevailing party who is a State educational agency or local educational agency against the attorney of a
Second District, Division Eight Affirms PUC’s Decision Denying Substantial Backend Fees and a Multiplier to Intervenor. Because attorney’s fee issues are pervasive, we now have a post of interest to lawyers who practice before the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The Utility Reform Network (TURN) intervened in
