Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Consumer Statutes, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Significant Reduction To Prevailing CLRA Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Fees Request And Denial Of Costs Award Was Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

The Trial Court Improperly Based Its Fee/Costs Awards Entirely On Defendant’s Counsel’s Arguments Which Were Made Without Any Supporting Evidence.             In Solis v. MVP Cars, Case No. E075101 (4th Dist., Div. 2 January 24, 2022) (unpublished), defendant was sued under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1750 et seq.) for its failures […]

Deadlines, Judgment Enforcement, SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Trial Court Correctly Determined Reimbursement Of Fees/Costs Sought By Prevailing SLAPP Defendant Were For Judgment Enforcement, Not Appellate Fees, Motion Was Timely Filed

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Distinction Between Enforcement Fees And Appellate Fees Set Forth In McQueen Governed.             In Laue v. Ortiz, Case No. H047475 (6th Dist., January 7, 2022) (unpublished), defendant successfully SLAPPed plaintiff’s complaint and was awarded fees and costs as mandated under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c)(1) – the anti-SLAPP fee shifting provision.  After unsuccessfully appealing

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Attorney Knowing That A Torts Claim Had An Invalid Proof Of Service, Leading To A County Directed Verdict, Exposed Plaintiff To A Substantial Fees Award

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Losing Plaintiff Ordered To Pay $121,837.50 In Attorney’s Fees And $11,637.85 In Costs             Government Code section 1038 penalizes a plaintiff who files and pursues an action subject to a tort claims presentation to defense costs against the governmental entity, when a directed verdict is granted, where plaintiff proceeded in bad faith and without reasonable

Employment, Multipliers, Reasonableness of Fees: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Award Of Attorney Fees To Prevailing Plaintiffs In DJOA Action

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Amount Of Fee Award Was Justified Given Trial Court’s Analysis Of The Complexity Of The Case, Results Achieved By Plaintiffs, And Plaintiffs’ Showing To Support The Fee Request.             The Displaced Janitors Opportunity Act (Lab. Code, §§ 1060–1065) “requires contractors who are awarded contracts for janitorial or building maintenance services at a particular site to

Costs, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: No Abuse Of Discretion In Attorney Fees And Costs Award Of $1,454,938.70 Against One Of Three Defendants, Without Apportionment, In Wrongful Death Case

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Apportionment Of Attorney Fees Was Not Feasible As Plaintiffs’ Efforts Against The Defendants Were Inextricably Intertwined,  And The Case Could Not Have Been Presented Without Significant Expert Testimony To Determine Who Was Legally Responsible.             In Hatcher v. Powell, Case No. B302730 (2d Dist., Div. 6 September 27, 2021) (unpublished), four defendants were sued in

Prevailing Party, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Award Of $23,162.50 To Prevailing Civil Harassment Plaintiff

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Awarded Fees, Which Were Reduced From The $70,000 Requested, Were Not Excessive Considering The Complexities Of The Case And The Increased Attorney’s Fees Plaintiff Incurred As A Result Of Defendant’s Conduct.             In Rowan v. Kirkpatrick, Case No. A161436 (1st Dist., Div. 3 September 13, 2021) (unpublished), defendant appealed the trial court’s award, under Code

Common Fund, Costs, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 4/3 DCA Affirms Large Part Of Trial Judge’s Fee And Costs Rulings In Financial Elder Abuse/Derivative Litigation

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Hornet Nest Of Fees And Costs Issues Resolved By Appellate Court.             We knew right away that Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth penned Horowitz v. Brown, Case No. G057412 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 30, 2021) (unpublished) based on his distinctive writing style.  The appellate court faced a virtual hornet nest of fees and costs issues,

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Partner Winning Dispute Against Other Partner Over Existence Of A Partnership Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Corporations Code Section 16041(c)

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Intra-Partner Dispute Not Covered By The Statute.             In SCSA Group, Inc. v. Worden, Case No. G058859 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 28, 2021) (unpublished), one partner prevailing in an intra-partner dispute about the existence of a partnership sought attorney’s fees from the losing partner under Corporations Code section 16041(c).  The trial judge denied

Lodestar, SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Pasternack Decision Now Published

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Acceptance Of A Reduced Rate From Client Does Not Preclude Attorney From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method.             In our June 10, 2021 post, we discussed Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) which was unpublished at the time.  Pasternack follows other California decisions

Experts, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 1/5 DCA Affirms Denial Of Attorney Fees To Elder Abuse Act Plaintiff And Denial Of § 998 Expert Witness Fees To Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Experts, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Failed To Prove Harm As Required Under Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.5(a) Because The Approximate $400,000 In Annuities Upon Which He Based Harm Had Been Returned Pursuant To A Probate Court Order More Than A Year Before Trial, But Defendants’ § 998 Offer Was Not Reasonable Nor Made In Good Faith Given The

Scroll to Top