Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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that Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth penned Horowitz v. Brown, Case No. G057412 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 30, 2021) (unpublished) based on his distinctive writing style.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             In SCSA Group, Inc. v. Worden, Case No. G058859 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 28, 2021) (unpublished), one partner prevailing in an intra-partner dispute about the existence of a partnership sought attorney’s fees from the losing partner under Corporations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June 10, 2021 post, we discussed Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) which was unpublished at the time.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

Sanctions, Section 1717, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 2/7 DCA Reverses Sanctions Imposed Against Builder Defendants For Violation Of Stay Order Regarding A Development Project Of Four Homes In The Coastal Zone Of Venice.

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Stay Order Was Vague And Did Not Provide Builder With Information As To How It Was Supposed To Act Or What Conduct Would Violate The Stay.             In Rudisill v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B299331 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 22, 2021) (unpublished), two residents who opposed a development project consisting of four homes

Appeal Sanctions, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Obtaining Restraining Order Against Neighbor And Successfully Defeating Neighbor’s Appeals Was Denied Her §527.6(s) Request For Trial And Appellate Fees, And For Appeal Sanctions

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Trial Court’s Fees Denial, Failed To Provide Appellate Panel With Support Or Argument For §527.6(s) Award For Fees Incurred On Appeal, And Neighbor’s Meritless Appeals Did Not Rise To The Level Of Frivolity So As To Warrant Sanctions.             After granting plaintiff’s request for a temporary and later permanent restraining order

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Additional Fees Sought By Prevailing Party In Government Property Code Enforcement Proceeding Not Allowed Under Government Code Or Municipal Code

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Form Of The Action Was Important—Absence Of An Abatement Order Was Crucial To Determination That No Further Fees Were Required.             Fratus v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. A157397 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 10, 2021) (unpublished) is one of those cases were prevailing parties, in the overall sense, should have been entitled to

Lodestar, SLAPP, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 2/8 DCA Affirms Fee Award To Prevailing SLAPPing Defendant That Was Greater Than The Fees Paid For Defense By His Insurer

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

An Attorney Accepting A Reduced Rate From A Client Is Not Precluded From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method.             In Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) (unpublished), prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike was awarded $146,010 out of his requested $330,420

Consumer Statutes, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Reduced Song-Beverly Attorney Fees By Almost $100,000 Because Plaintiffs Rejected § 998 Offer That Was Only $8,500 Less Than Ultimate Settlement

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

The Trial Court Improperly Cut Off Fees Incurred After Plaintiffs’ Rejection Of The § 998 Offer Instead Of Engaging In A Lodestar Analysis Of The Entire Case Pursuant to Civil Code § 1794(d).             In Reck v. FCA US LLC, Case No. A157966 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 24, 2021) (published), the trial court awarded

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $15,753 Discretionary Fee Award Against Unsuccessful Civil Harassment Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

82% Reduction Request Was Unreasonable Under The Circumstances.             In Huard v. Eldridge, Case No. B301903 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 19, 2021) (unpublished), the parties’ jointly owned investment property led to two series of civil harassment restraining order proceedings.  The first round went to petitioner, who was awarded $4,500 out of a requested $22,543

Scroll to Top