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usually determined through a noticed motion, as Bullock v. Anderson, Case No. B309230 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished) makes clear.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 […]
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 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
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 C088859/C090081 (3d Dist., January 31, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff – owner
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 In Solis v. MVP Cars, Case No. E075101 (4th Dist., Div. 2 January 24, 2022) (unpublished), defendant was sued under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ.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
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 In Laue v. Ortiz, Case No. H047475 (6th Dist., January 7, 2022) (unpublished), defendant successfully SLAPPed plaintiff’s complaint and was awarded fees and costs as mandated under Code Civ.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
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
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
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
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
