Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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             In Sall v. Agam, Case No. B317976 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 21, 2023) (unpublished), the appellate court considered whether a prevailing defendant could obtain attorney’s fees under Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.5(a), which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

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $8,993.75 Fee Award In Dismissed Civil Harassment Restraining Order Proceeding Was Affirmed On Appeal As No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$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             In Schumann v. Maxon, Case No. G061230 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 21, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a civil harassment restraining order against her upstairs neighbor and neighbor’s attorney even though she voluntarily dismissed the matter.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

Civil Rights, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $40,295 Civil Harassment Fee Award To Prevailing Party Affirmed, Although Amended Fee Order To Add Another Party Was Void Based On The Prior Fee Award Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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             In Aaronoff v. Olson, Case No. B295388 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 24, 2023) (unpublished), prevailing party in a civil harassment proceeding (where the trial judge has discretion to award prevailing party fees per CCP § 527.6(a)) awarded $40,295 to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

Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Denial Of Fees To Corporate Shareholder Under Corporations Code Section 1604 Was Proper

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $125,000 Fees/Costs Award Under Public Records Act To Petitioner Was Reversed On Appeal, While The Lower Court’s Denial Of Fees To Responding Party Was Correct

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Determination That There Was No Prevailing Party Under Civ. Code Section 8800 In Prompt Payment Action Affirmed, But Reversal For Same Determination Under Code Civ. Proc., Section 1032

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Determination Of Prevailing Party Under Section 8800 Is Left To The Trial Court’s Broad Discretion, But The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion In Determining There Was No Prevailing Party Under Section 1032 Where Plaintiff Was The Only Party With A Net Monetary Recovery.             Civil Code section 8800 is a prompt payment statute governing progress

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Requester Who Received Information Under CPRA After Petitioning For Writ Of Mandate Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Requester’s Litigation Was Not The Catalyst For The Disclosure Of The Information Requester Sought Under The CPRA.             Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), a trial court “shall award court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the requester should the requester prevail in litigation filed pursuant to this section.” (Gov. Code § 6259(d).)  However,

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Although County’s CCP § 1038 Motion Was Timely, It Was Properly Denied Because Losing Plaintiff Had A Good Faith, Reasonable Basis For Pursuing His Dangerous Condition Suit

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Nothing in Section 1038 Prohibits A Lower Court From Considering A Postjudgment Fees Motion.             Plaintiff in Burkot v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B306244 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 14, 2022) (unpublished) lost a summary judgment in a dangerous condition intersection case after County’s objections to plaintiff’s opposing expert declarations were sustained to

Civil Rights, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Website Accessibility Plaintiff’s Award Of $95,295.67 In Attorneys’ Fees And Costs, Under Civil Code Sections 51 And 52, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Defendant Could Not Renege On Joint Stipulation Wherein It Agreed That It Would Not Dispute Liability, And Would Not Dispute Plaintiff’s Entitlement To Fees/Costs Under Civil Code Sections 51 And 52.             In Gutierrez v. Chopard, Case No. B309098 (2d Dist., Div. 5 August 19, 2022) (published), plaintiff, who is legally blind, filed a complaint

Appealability, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Despite No Real Opposition To Civil Harassment Restraining Order Fee Motion, Reversal Of Damages Award Means Fee Award Had To Be Revisited

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appellate Court Agreed That No Opposition To Fees Would Normally Be Dispositive, But Reversal In Eliminating Damages Changed The Landscape.             Hao v. Wang, Case o. B306737 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 12, 2022) (unpublished) is an interesting case in showing how even a litigant not opposing a fees motion may still get a remand

Scroll to Top