Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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             In Rudisill v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B299331 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 22, 2021) (unpublished), two residents who opposed a development project consisting of four homes […]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             Fratus v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. A157397 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 10, 2021) (unpublished) is one of those cases were prevailing parties, in the overall sense, should have been entitled to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             In Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) (unpublished), prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike was awarded $146,010 out of his requested $330,420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

Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: The 1/5 DCA Affirms $2,961,264.29 Fees And Costs Award, Inclusive Of A 1.4 Multiplier, To Prevailing Plaintiff In Action For Violations Of A Conservation Easement

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s Attorneys, Who Bore The Risk Of Taking On A Partially Contingent Case With Important Public Interests At Stake, Displayed Exceptional Expertise and Skill In A Case Involving Nearly Five Years Of Contentious Litigation And A 19-Day Trial.             Following a 19-day bench trial in The Sonoma Land Trust v. Thompson, Case No. A159139 (1st

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Defendant Winning Dismissal Of Civil Harassment Restraining Proceeding Only Obtains $5,000 Out Of Requested $11,500 In Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Request Was Excessive, But Trope Argument Against Defendant Was Unavailing.             A plaintiff dismissing a civil harassment restraining order proceeding, without informing defendant or the lower court of the dismissal, was subject to defendant’s fee motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s), a discretionary fee-shifting statute.  The lower court in Khalili v. Hoag,

Special Fee-Shifting Statutes: In A 2-1 Decision, Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Determination That FOIA Plaintiff Who “Substantially Prevailed” By Obtaining Relief Through A Judicial Order Was Ineligible For Fees Award

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Dissent Was Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Show That His Lawsuit, Rather Than A Change In Circumstances, Was A Substantial Cause Of The Relief He Obtained.             The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows district courts to assess reasonable attorney fees and costs against the United States in any FOIA case in which the

Civil Rights, Costs, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes: Ninth Circuit Vacates And Remands $5,962.11 Costs Award To Defendant Landlord Prevailing On Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff Tenant Claiming Race And Disability Discrimination

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

In So Doing, The Ninth Circuit Joins The First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits In Holding That The Christiansburg Standard Applies To The Award Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs Under The Fair Housing Act.             The U.S. Supreme Court, in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), held that, under the fee-shifting provision

Scroll to Top