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 Regional Water Quality Control v. Balcom Ranch, Case No. B311434 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 15, 2023) (unpublished).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 […]
Correlation Is Not The Same As Causation, With This Issue Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion. In Valenti v. City of San Diego, Case No. D080133 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 18, 2021) (certified for publication on August 8, 2023), the lower court denied a request for $250,000 in attorney’s fees (lodestar plus a 1.25
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
$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 Geiser v. Kuhns, Case No. B279738 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2021) (unpublished) is a case where both a civil harassment fee award and SLAPP denial were in play, with the California Supreme Court on two occasions remanding to the appellate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
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
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 In Sall v. Agam, Case No. B317976 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 21, 2023) (unpublished), the appellate court considered whether a prevailing defendant could obtain attorney’s fees under Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.5(a), which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
$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 In Schumann v. Maxon, Case No. G061230 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 21, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a civil harassment restraining order against her upstairs neighbor and neighbor’s attorney even though she voluntarily dismissed the matter.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
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
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
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
