Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A 2-1 Opinion, 4/1 DCA Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff Under A Stipulated Judgment As A Catalyst In A California Public Records Act Case

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Dissenting Justice Believed Prevailing Party’s Last Year Of Litigation Was Unnecessary Such That Fees For Those Efforts Were Unreasonable.                In Castanares v. City of San Diego, Case No. D082562 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 30, 2024) (unpublished), a lower court entered judgment based on the parties’ stipulation that City had violated the California Public

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Fee Award For Hospital Affirmed And Fee Award For Medical Staff Reversed In Peer Review Dispute Involving Doctor’s Suspension Of Hospital Privileges

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Shifting Centered On Business & Professions Code Section 809.9.                One of the interesting aspects of posting on California fee decisions is we get to explore some special fee shifting statutes.  Business and Professions Code section 809.9 is a specialized one allowing for substantially prevailing party fees to the winner in a peer review

Consumer Statutes, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $264,440 In Attorney’s Fees Affirmed Against Bond Surety Defendant That Issued $50,000 Bond To Auto Dealer Who Used Fraudulent Tactics To Sell A Used Car To Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Was Unable to Collect Arbitration Award For Violations Of The Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Leading Her To Successfully Seek Summary Judgment Against Surety Under Veh. Code Section 11711 For Dealership’s Fraudulent Representation             In Gonzalez v. Hudson Insurance Co., Case Nos. D080166/D081686 (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 13, 2024) (unpublished), auto dealer sold a

Employment, Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Denial Of Labor Code Section 1194 Attorney Fees To Plaintiffs Who Incurred Post-Settlement Fees After Employer Breached The Settlement Agreement Reversed

Cases: Employment, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Because The Fees Provision In The Parties’ Settlement Agreement Did Not Address Fees Incurred Post-Settlement, Plaintiffs Were Entitled To Recovery Under Section 1194, But Only As To Fees Incurred In Conducting Discovery And Litigating To Trial, Not In Enforcing The Settlement Agreement.             In Lorta v. Bishop, Case No. G062166 (4th Dist., Div. 3

Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Section 998: Kinney Opinion Now Certified For Publication

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Opinion Illustrates How Valid Section 998 Offer Can Reduce Fee Exposure Under A Fee Shifting Statute.             On December 31, 2023, we posted on Kinney v. City of Corona, Case No. E079840, which was unpublished at the time.  We can now report that Kinney was certified for publication on January 24, 2024.  It demonstrates how

Family Law, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Court Of Appeal Decides Current Version Of Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Applies Retroactively To Cases After 2023, Justifying A Fee Award

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Family Code Section 6344 Applies Retroactively.             In Dragones III v. Calkins, Case No. B329659 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 17, 2024) (published), the 2/7 DCA confronted whether Family Code section 6344, effective 2023, made it easier for a prevailing petitioner to obtain fees and harder for a prevailing respondent to obtain fees in actions

Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $43,300 Fee Award Under California Public Records Act Statute Was Justified

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

. . . However, Fee Award Had To Be Reduced Down To $2,475 Based on Successful Defense § 988 Offer With Respect To Post-Offer Fees.             On appeal, you win some, you lose some, or the appellate court modifies judgments in varying amounts.  That third result is what occurred in Kinney v. City of Corona,

Allocation, Requests For Admission, Special Fee Shifting Provision: 4/1 DCA Affirms Denial Of Fees To Prevailing Defendant Under Consumer Data Access And Fraud Act, But Remands For Determination Of RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions For Request Denials

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

Failure To Allocate Fatal On The CDAFA Claim, But Lack Of Any Evidence During A Jury Trial Meant Some Costs-of-Proof Sanctions Were in Order on Remand.             In Yeng Midas Touch, Inc. v. Phanichkul, Case No. D080981 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 29, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff lost various tort and a claim under the Computer

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Respondent Obtaining Dismissal Of Elder Abuse Restraining Case After Petitioner Died Was Properly Awarded Partial Fees For Obtaining The Dismissal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Only Motion To Dismiss Fees Were Awarded.             Maroudas v. Carrillo, Case No. H050224 (6th Dist. Nov. 14, 2023) (unpublished) is a situation where respondent was awarded attorney’s fees and costs under Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.03(t), the elder abuse fee shifting statute, for obtaining a dismissal of a petition after the petitioner died. 

Lodestar; Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In Two MRL Cases, Fees And Costs Affirmed In One Case, But A “Quarterling Approach” To Fee Reduction Required A Remand In The Other Case

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Mobile Home Park Owner Entitled To Prevailing Party Fee Recovery For Obtaining Free And Clear Ownership After A Public Sale Of An Abandoned Lot Where Lease Fees Were Owed.             In this post, we summarize two lengthy fees/costs decisions arising under Civil Code section 798.85, the fees/costs shifting provision of the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL). 

Scroll to Top