Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: UC Davis Student, Whose Suspension Was Overturned Through Administrative Writ Proceeding, Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees, But Matter Remanded To See If Fees Warranted Under Gov. Code § 800

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appellate Court Disagrees That An Investigation Has To Be Wholly Arbitrary Or Capricious For Section 800 Purposes.             In Doe v. Atkinson, Case No. A166145 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 19, 2023) (published), a lower court in an administrative writ proceeding overturned the one-year suspension of a UC Davis junior for violating sexual harassment principles, […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Prevailing Plaintiff, Found Comparatively At Fault, Was Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees As Against Defendant Who Entered A Nolo Plea To Felony Driving Under The Influence Of Alcohol Which Caused Injury To Plaintiff

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

CCP § 1021.4 Was The Fee Shifting Statute.             Isom v. MacCarthy, Case No. B317433 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 2, 2023) (unpublished) involved application of CCP § 1021.4, which allows a court in its discretion to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing tort plaintiff as against a defendant who is convicted of a felony

Ethics, Retainer Agreement, Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Although Fee Award Against HOA Belongs To Attorney, Attorney Had To Offset For Contingency Fee Already Received

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Attorney Was Liable For Substantial Elder Abuse Fees To Prevailing Elderly Client Based On Failing To Properly Offset And Return Money To Client.             Koehler v. Prinz, Case No. C095229 (3d Dist. Sept. 25, 2023) (unpublished) is a case which shows that attorneys need to be careful when they receive a fee award which belongs

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $955,500 Fee Award And $83,246.52 Costs Award Affirmed In Elder Neglect Case

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Total Compensatory Damages Were $696,833.97.             As we have observed before in line with our Mission Statement, attorney’s fees can be the game winner where there is a fee-shifting basis—contractual, statutory, or equitable.  Newton v. Enloe Medical Center, Case No. C095324 (3d Dist. Sept. 12, 2023) (unpublished) illustrates that well.             This was an elder

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $167,400 Fee Contempt Recovery To California Regional Water Quality Control Board Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Entitlement Was Established.             Just to show you that we post on arcane issues, we refer you to Cal. Regional Water Quality Control v. Balcom Ranch, Case No. B311434 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 15, 2023) (unpublished).  There, the Water Board was awarded with a contempt fee recovery under Government Code § 11455.20 and CCP

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

Scroll to Top