Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

CEQA Attorney’s Fees Award Reversed Because Petitioners Did Substantially Comply With Providing Notice Of Expedited Hearing Date

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division Four Faces Novel Issue, Overturning Fee Award Against Petitioners.      Now we look at an interesting decision for CEQA practitioners.      Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), a petitioner must request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition or be subject to […]

Brother Losing Wrongful Death/Survival Action Tagged With Over $250,000 In Attorney’s Fees On Various Grounds

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Defendant Given Relief From Default Judgment Properly Assessed With Payment Of $8,000 Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs As A Condition Of Relief

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Sixth District Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award of $244,287.50 Against Monterey County Under the California Public Records Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Unpublished Decision Nicely Surveys Such Topics As Standard of Review, Lodestar, and Multiplier Principles.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

Elder Financial Abuse Attorney’s Fees Award Affirmed Against Attorney With Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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.            

Mobile Homeowners Awarded $350,000 Attorney’s Fees Under The San Rafael Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

First District Vacates Attorney’s Fees and Expert Fees Awarded Against School District

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Can Attorneys Intervene In Certain Cases To Recover Fees When Clients Will Not Allow Them to File A Fee Petition Request?

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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,

Mobile Home Purchasers Prevail On Contract Breach And Negligence Claims, But Have No Basis For Fee Recovery

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Scroll to Top