Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Third District Directs that Market Rates Be Used In Private Attorney General Land Use Fee Proceeding And Rejects That Fees Were Not Necessary For Private Enforcement Of Appropriate Environmental Review

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court’s Reliance on Contract Hourly Rates and Overturns Its Erroneous Determination That Litigation Was Unnecessary.             This post should be of particular interest to land use and environmental attorneys, showing how appellate courts take interest in making sure private attorney general fee awards are fair to litigants truly

Disabled Plaintiff Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under Unruh Act in Unpublished Decision Even Though He Lost in Same Day Published Decision

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division Six Finds For Disabled Plaintiff in Unpublished Decision.             In our July 8, 2008 post, we reviewed the Second District, Division Six’s published decision of Molski v. Arciero Wine Group, in which the appellate court affirmed a fee award against Mr. Molski and in favor of a prevailing defendant

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

Scroll to Top