Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Additionally Entitled To Fees On Appeal, Subject To The Applicable $7,500 Cap.             Isenberg v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, Case No. F082435 (5th Dist. July 22, 2022) (unpublished) is an interesting 2-1 opinion by the Fifth District on the propriety of a $3,640 attorney’s fees award to a prevailing plaintiff in a DUI suspension

Result Was The Same:  Attorney’s Fees Request Were Properly Denied Based On Lack Of Causation.             The Fifth District, in Austin v. City of Taft, confronted a causation situation under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).  We posted on this case.  The same day, it also decided a similar situation with the same result in

Ability To Pay Was Acknowledged And Was A Minor Consideration.             Litigants in civil harassment restraining order proceedings need to be aware that there is a discretionary prevailing party fee-shifting statute under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s).   In Nicolino v. Rey, Case No. B307752 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 27, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff lost

Minimal/Insignificant Standard Is Applicable to CPRA Fees, Even Though the Statute Has Mandatory Prevailing Party Fee Language.             Riskin v. Downtown L.A. Property Owners Assn., Case No. B309814 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 17, 2022) (published) dealt with a situation where a petitioner under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) obtained a $71,075.75 attorney’s fees

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usually determined through a noticed motion, as Bullock v. Anderson, Case No. B309230 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished) makes clear.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.

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