Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Judicial Foreclosure Actions—Attorney’s Fees Are Added to the Loan Indebtedness for Purposes of Calculating Deficiency and Fee Exposure

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District Rejects Borrower’s Argument That Contractual Fees Incurred by Lender Are Excluded from Deficiency Calculation.             In this time of subprime lending fallout and rising foreclosures, judicial foreclosures are making a comeback, as they typically do when market values plunge.  Lenders on commercial and investment residential projects frequently opt to pursue […]

Pretrial Attachment Remedies Allow For Provisional Award of Costs and Allowable Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Code of Civil Procedure section 482.110 Authorizes Adding Costs and Attorney’s Fees to the Attachable Principal Amount.             For practitioners who have prosecuted or defended collection/contract actions, you have most certainly run into the California pretrial writ of attachment remedy.  The pretrial attachment statutory scheme is a potent remedy to allow a

Violation of In Limine Rulings Does Not Give Rise To Attorney’s Fees Sanctions

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District Reverses Fee Sanctions Award and Award to State Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038, But Affirms 998 Award to State.             This next case establishes that fee sanctions must have a firm basis in legislatively-authorized statutes (or implementing rules) that have solid due process protections.  Relying only on inherent

Eminent Domain Litigation Expenses Award Reversed Because Owners’ Pretrial Final Demand Was Unreasonable As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division One Reverses $80,971.78 Award Against City of El Centro and Imperial County             We have yet to talk about litigation expenses (including attorney’s fees) awardable under California’s eminent domain statutory scheme.  This next case gives us an introduction to wet everyone’s appetite in this area.           

Consumer Legal Remedies Act Fee-Shifting Provision—Lower Court’s Remand Determination That Plaintiff Obtained A “Net Monetary Recovery” Compelled An Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiff

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

Second District, in Kim II, Reverses Denial of Fee to Settling Plaintiff Who Obtained Rescission and Restitution in a “Lemon Porsche” Case.             The nice thing about our blog is that many cases come back to illustrate fee recovery principles or give us a chance to elaborate on past posts.  The next

Successful Plaintiffs’ Counsel In Song-Beverly Act Case Is Awarded $545,723 In Cumulative Fees/Costs After Winning Case At Trial Level And Prevailing In Two Appeals

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

Fifth District Affirms Trial Court’s Fee Enhancement Award Upon Remand.             In Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 785 (2006) (Robertson I), the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs (a couple) for Fleetwood’s failure to repair their defective travel trailer and

Homeowner Saddled With Bearing $348,468 Adverse Fee Judgment Awarded To Unpaid Contractor Under Civil Code Section 3260

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division Three Affirms Large Fee Award and Adds Costs on Appeal in Favor of Contractor.             Fee shifting statutes can have disastrous consequences, shifting the risk allocation in dramatic fashion such that fees get awarded to a winning party even though they dwarf the amount at issue in the underlying

Scroll to Top