Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

POOF!, Special Fee Shifting Statute: CCP § 1038 Fees/Costs Assessed Against Plaintiff And In Favor Of City In Dangerous Property Case Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s Claim Was Colorable Such That “Reasonable Cause” Element Was Missing So As To Not Justify The Award.             Cities gaining pre-trial victories in certain cases frequently move to recover some attorney’s fees and costs against a losing defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038.  However, the governmental entity must prove that the plaintiff’s […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Losing A Contested Civil Harassment Restraining Order Proceeding Properly Saddled With $37,139.01 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ability To Pay Was Acknowledged And Was A Minor Consideration.             Litigants in civil harassment restraining order proceedings need to be aware that there is a discretionary prevailing party fee-shifting statute under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s).   In Nicolino v. Rey, Case No. B307752 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 27, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff lost

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $71,075.075 Grant Of Attorney’s Fees To California Public Records Act Petitioner Reversed Because Minimal/Insignificant Results In Document Disclosure May Allow For Denial Of Fees Altogether

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Minimal/Insignificant Standard Is Applicable to CPRA Fees, Even Though the Statute Has Mandatory Prevailing Party Fee Language.             Riskin v. Downtown L.A. Property Owners Assn., Case No. B309814 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 17, 2022) (published) dealt with a situation where a petitioner under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) obtained a $71,075.75 attorney’s fees

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Civil Harassment Fee Award Reversed Where No Noticed Motion Was Filed To Claim Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Issuance Of Fee Order At The Actual Harassment Hearing Was Improper.             Due process does matter, and reasonableness of fees are usually determined through a noticed motion, as Bullock v. Anderson, Case No. B309230 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished) makes clear.  What happened here is that a lower court dismissed a civil

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Attorney Fees Award Of $10,295 To Prevailing Defendant In Civil Harassment Action Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed The Civil Harassment Action, And Failed To Show That The Trial Court Acted Arbitrarily Or Unreasonably Under Highly Deferential Discretion Standard.             Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s) allows a trial court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil harassment proceeding.  In Firsov v. Zhukovsky, Case No.

Block Billing, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Nike Is Awarded About $260,000 In Attorney’s Fees Against Michael Avenatti Under The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act

Cases: Block Billing, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Block Billing Hampered Apportionment Of Fees, With District Judge Only Awarding About A Third Of The Ask.             It is not often that we post on a criminal case, but the publicity generated and interesting fee-shifting statute involved in USA v. Avenatti, Case No. (SI) 19 Cr. 373 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. Doc. 34, Mem. and Order

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Third District Affirms Attorney Fee Awards Totaling $897,349.85 To Prevailing Defendants In Action Seeking To Determine And Enforce Rights Under CC&Rs

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

CC&R Attorney Fee Clause Did Not Supersede Mandatory Davis-Stirling Fee Shifting Provision, And Apportionment Was Unnecessary Where Each Of Plaintiff’s Causes Of Action Involved Defendants’ Alleged Violations Of The CC&Rs And Plaintiff’s Rights Thereunder.             In Westwood Montserrat v. AGK Sierra de Montserrat, Case Nos. C088859/C090081 (3d Dist., January 31, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff – owner

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

Scroll to Top