Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division Six Decides that a Prevailing Defendant in a Civil Code Section 55 Injunctive Case is Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Award Even Where Plaintiff’s Claims Were Not Frivolous, Unreasonable or Groundless

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Court of Appeal Is First To Answer Unsettled Question Noted in Our July 3, 2008 Post.             On July 3, 2008, we posted a discussion of  Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, a Ninth Circuit case that found an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant in federal court—granted under California’s Disabled Persons […]

Trustees Fees Are Not Awardable Under the Elder Abuse Act’s Fee-Shifting Provision and $1 Million Attorney’s Fees Award Reversed as Excessive

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

Second District, Division Three Rules on Scope and Reasonableness of Certain Fees Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5.             Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, one segment of California’s Elder Abuse Act, is a mandatory fee-shifting provision.  In relevant part, section 15657.5 provides:  “(a) Where it is proven by a preponderance

Shasta Superior Court Judge Awards Newspaper $36,288 in Attorney’s Fees Under California Public Records Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Government Code Section 6259(d) Provides for Mandatory Fee Award to Prevailing Plaintiff.             California has a Public Records Act (CPRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act.  Persons can request release of certain public records, subject to exemptions, and can sue to compel release of documents from

Reversal and Remand of Damage Award Likely Means that Fee Award Under a 998 Offer Also Gets Reversed

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division One Does Just That In Consumer Legal Remedies Act/Song-Beverly Act Case.             The Song-Beverly Act, Civil Code section 1790 et seq., is a legislatively-crafted scheme to protect consumers buying certain personal goods from defects and providing replacement/repair directives under certain conditions.  Section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Act provides for

Lower Court Erroneously Awarded Default and Then Prevailing Party Status to Plaintiff Where Defendant Failed to Appear for Trial

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division Three Reverses $2,700 Fee Award As Without Basis.             The next case arose from a rather bizarre set of facts, showing fee awards will be withheld if the fee is awarded as an unwarranted penalty in the guise of a statutory fee award.             This legal

SUCCESSFUL ANTI-SLAPP DEFENDANT CANNOT RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR PREVAILING FROM “SLAPPED” PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District So Holds In Unpublished Decision and Modifies Judgment So That Attorney Is Not Held Liable for Anti-SLAPP Fees.             Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c), a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs.   This has been interpreted to mean the losing plaintiff

LIS PENDENS WITHDRAWAL—YOU STILL MIGHT GET AWARDED ATTORNEYS’ FEES SHORT OF AN EXPUNGEMENT

Cases: Lis Pendens, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Castro Holds That A Practical Prevailing Party Test Governs An Award of Fees When A Lis Pendens Is Withdrawn.         Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38 provides that the prevailing party on a motion to expunge a lis pendens is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in bringing or

LOSING PLAINTIFF IN DANGEROUS PUBLIC PROPERTY CASE DOES NOT SUFFER ADVERSE AWARD OF FEES UNDER THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION “COST OF PROOF” SCHEME OR CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1038

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division Two Splits Sharply On Fee Award Denial By Lower Court .             Mr. Leviant, of The Complex Litigator, has done a very insightful synopsis of Laabs v. City of Victorville, Case No. E040778 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 12, 2008) (certified for publication) on the subject of when “cost

ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT STIPULATION BASED ON STATUTORY LABOR VIOLATIONS REAPS FEE AWARD WHEN DEFENDANT DEFAULTS

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

Second District Finds That Settlement Stipulation Justified Fee Entitlement and Rejected Challenges to Substantiation of Claimed Fees.             A plaintiff enters into a settlement stipulation with defendant, agreeing only to waive fees and costs upon full payment.  Defendant does not pay.  Plaintiff obtains an order enforcing the settlement agreement payment terms and

Scroll to Top