Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: County Properly Awarded $26,065.41 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs In Nuisance Abatement Proceeding

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Cannabis Cultivation On Residential Property Was The Factual Backdrop.             Governmental authorities may receive an award of attorney’s fees and costs for abating property nuisances under both state statutes and municipal ordinances, in this case Government Code section 25845(b), (c) and Riverside County Ordinance No. 725.  The County obtained summary judgment against a property owner

Special Fee Shifting Statutes, SLAPP: $40,000 Civil Harassment Fee Award To The Defense Affirmed, But SLAPP Denial Remanded After California Supreme Court Transfer To See If Step Two Was Satisfied

Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$84,150 Civil Harassment Fee Request Reduced By More Than 50%.             Geiser v. Kuhns, Case No. B279738 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2021) (unpublished) is a case where both a civil harassment fee award and SLAPP denial were in play, with the California Supreme Court on two occasions remanding to the appellate court on

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Indian Tribes Litigant Properly Denied Fee Recovery Because Their Federal Claim Had No Fee Predicate Basis For Recovery Of Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Tribes Only Prevailed On A Federal Claim, But Fees Not Allowed On That Claim; Lurking State Law Issues Did Not Alter The Result.             In Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. State of California, Case No. 21-15751 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023) (published), Tribes successfully sued California for failure to comply with the federal

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Financial Elder Abuse Fee Shifting Provision Precludes An Award Of Attorney’s Fees To A Prevailing Defendant Under A Financial Elder Abuse Claim

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Only A Prevailing Plaintiff Is Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.5(a).             In Sall v. Agam, Case No. B317976 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 21, 2023) (unpublished), the appellate court considered whether a prevailing defendant could obtain attorney’s fees under Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.5(a), which expressly only allows

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $8,993.75 Fee Award In Dismissed Civil Harassment Restraining Order Proceeding Was Affirmed On Appeal As No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$13,051.75 Request Was Pared Down By The Lower Court.             In Schumann v. Maxon, Case No. G061230 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 21, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a civil harassment restraining order against her upstairs neighbor and neighbor’s attorney even though she voluntarily dismissed the matter.  Primary defendant, prevailing party, moved to recover discretionary fees

Civil Rights, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $40,295 Civil Harassment Fee Award To Prevailing Party Affirmed, Although Amended Fee Order To Add Another Party Was Void Based On The Prior Fee Award Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Trial Judge Rejected Fee Request For Half Based On The Party-Client Agreement.             In Aaronoff v. Olson, Case No. B295388 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 24, 2023) (unpublished), prevailing party in a civil harassment proceeding (where the trial judge has discretion to award prevailing party fees per CCP § 527.6(a)) awarded $40,295 to the prevailing

Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Denial Of Fees To Corporate Shareholder Under Corporations Code Section 1604 Was Proper

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Court Of Appeal Applied Civil Discovery Act Definition Of “Substantial Justification” In Construing Section 1604.             In Farnum v. Iris Biotechnologies, Inc., Case No. H047850 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2022) (published), the appellate court confronted the issue of how to construe “without justification” in Corporations Code section 1604, which has a discretionary fee-shifting provision in

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $125,000 Fees/Costs Award Under Public Records Act To Petitioner Was Reversed On Appeal, While The Lower Court’s Denial Of Fees To Responding Party Was Correct

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reason for Reversal As To Petitioner Was That The Responding Party Did Not Improperly Withhold Production Of Documents Responsive To The Original Records Request.             The scope of request made under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6250-6276.40—the PRA) took on special significance in Muchnick v. Regents of the University of California, Case

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Determination That There Was No Prevailing Party Under Civ. Code Section 8800 In Prompt Payment Action Affirmed, But Reversal For Same Determination Under Code Civ. Proc., Section 1032

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Determination Of Prevailing Party Under Section 8800 Is Left To The Trial Court’s Broad Discretion, But The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion In Determining There Was No Prevailing Party Under Section 1032 Where Plaintiff Was The Only Party With A Net Monetary Recovery.             Civil Code section 8800 is a prompt payment statute governing progress

Scroll to Top