Second District, Division Six Finds For Disabled Plaintiff in Unpublished Decision.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 […]
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
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
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
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
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
First District So Holds In Unpublished Decision and Modifies Judgment So That Attorney Is Not Held Liable for Anti-SLAPP Fees.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
Castro Holds That A Practical Prevailing Party Test Governs An Award of Fees When A Lis Pendens Is Withdrawn.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
First District Reverses Summary Judgment in ADA Case; Fee Award Also Reversed Because Appellant Separately Appealed It. In posts for June 6 and 7, 2008, we reviewed several decisions that denied review of fee awards because the appealing party did not bring a separate appeal. Here, we happily review a decision
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
