Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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             In Hatcher v. Powell, Case No. B302730 (2d Dist., Div. 6 September 27, 2021) (unpublished), four defendants were sued in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             In Rowan v. Kirkpatrick, Case No. A161436 (1st Dist., Div. 3 September 13, 2021) (unpublished), defendant appealed the trial court’s award, under Code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that Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth penned Horowitz v. Brown, Case No. G057412 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 30, 2021) (unpublished) based on his distinctive writing style.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

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

Scroll to Top