Appellate Court Sustains Fee Award Based on Unruh Act and CCP section 998; CCP section 1026(b) Did Not Bar Imposition of Fees Civil cases are very interesting affairs, with attorney’s fees awards based many times on variant statutory provisions. Justice Moore, of our local Fourth District, Division 3, was the author […]
Court of Appeal Observes that $1,000 Monetary “Cap” in CCP section 473 Only Applies to 473 Awardable Sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) authorizes a trial court to relieve a party from judgment taken against him/her through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court has discretion to allow relief
Unpublished Decision Nicely Surveys Such Topics As Standard of Review, Lodestar, and Multiplier Principles. In our June 30, 2008 post, we discussed a Shasta County Superior Court’s award of attorney’s fees against the City of Redding under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Government Code section 6259(d) provides for a mandatory
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
