Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 […]

ATTORNEYS DEFENSING LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AWARDED $80,962 IN “COST OF PROOF” FEES INCURRED IN PROVING FACTS IMPROPERLY DENIED IN THE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION PROCESS

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

Second District Corrects Clerical Error and Affirms Substantial “Cost of Proof” Award Against Losing Attorney Malpractice Plaintiff.             In our June 6, 2008 post, we reviewed the fee-shifting provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.430(a).  Briefly summarizing, that provision allows a trial court to award “costs of proof,” including reasonable attorney’s

LABOR CODE VIOLATIONS MAY MEAN FEE AWARD IS MANDATORY—BUT AMOUNT OF FEES ARE DISCRETIONARY AND MAY RESULT IN A DISAPPOINTINGLY SMALL AWARD

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District Finds that Plaintiff Individually Settling for $10,500—Even Though His Claim Was Only For $44.63—Entitled to Garner a $500 Fee Award.         There are many sections of the California Labor Code that have mandatory fee award authority. As examples, Labor Code section 1194(a) provides that employees paid less than their legal overtime

SUBSTANTIAL ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARDED WHEN DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED IN PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION

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

Second District Awards Fees and Costs of $37,146 Against Attorney Admitting Neglect in Responding to Complaint.             Can trial courts award substantial attorney’s fees against attorneys admitting neglect when they seek relief from default judgments on behalf of clients?  You bet, said the Second District in a recent unpublished decision.     

PARALEGALS UNITE!—UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDS PREVAILING PARTY MAY RECOVER ITS PARALEGAL FEES FROM THE GOVERNMENT AT PREVAILING MARKET RATES

Cases: Paralegal Time, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

High Court Construes EAJA To Allow Award of Paralegal Expenses as “Fees” at “Prevailing Market Rates.”             Petitioner Richlin prevailed against the Government on a claim before the Department of Transportation’s Board of Contract Appeals, and then filed an application for reimbursement, among other things, of paralegal fees pursuant to the Equal

ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARDS TO PREVAILING PLAINTIFFS UNDER THE CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT—CAN RECOVERY BE HAD FOR PREFILING SETTLEMENTS OR SETTLEMENTS AFTER LITIGATION HAS BEEN COMMENCED? We Provide Answers Below.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Recent Article in California Lawyer Explores Potential Limitations on Fee Recovery for Suing Plaintiffs under CLRA.             Greg Nylen, an opponent in a class action that Mike Hensley is prosecuting, has written a nifty article in the June 2008 California Lawyer, entitled “Handling Claims under the CLRA” (found at pages 43-46 of

ELDER ABUSE CLAIM, BASED ON RECKLESSNESS, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR GRANT OF STATUTORY ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD WHERE CAUSATION NOT PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

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

Second District So Holds In Case of First Impression Statutory Interpretation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.             Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657 provides that a defendant proven liable for physical abuse or neglect under prior sections of the Elder Abuse Act, where the commission of the abuse was done

HOMEOWNER WINS ANTI-SLAPP ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD BECAUSE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION BROUGHT FRIVOLOUS MOTION AGAINST HER CLAIMS

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District Affirms Fee Award and Clarifies That Frivolousness Findings Do Not Have to be Prolix in Nature.        If a plaintiff defeats an anti-SLAPP motion determined to be frivolous, the plaintiff must be awarded attorneys under the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c).) Frivolousness requires a finding that the anti-SLAPP

In PRO PER APPELLANT LOSES CHALLENGES TO APPELLATE ATTORNEY FEE AWARD FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL OF AN ANTI-SLAPP ORDER

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 3 Sanctions Losing In Pro Per Plaintiff By Affirming $40,000 Attorney’s Fees Award.             Previously, an in pro per litigant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a fraudulent transfer complaint by an opponent.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §425.16 [anti-SLAPP statute].)  In pro per lost the motion, and the trial

UNSUPPORTED CHALLENGE OF “EXCESSIVENESS” OR “DUPLICATIVE WORK” BY APPELLANT CHALLENGING FEE AWARDS REJECTED BY COURT OF APPEAL

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Experts, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District Affirms Award of Anti-SLAPP Fees to Defendant Where Fee Attacks Were Not Supported by Competent Evidence.                          When opposing a fee motion, a litigant should support challenges with competent evidence.  Such evidence can take the form of an expert witness or a particularized challenge to

Scroll to Top