Attorney's Fees

Subscribe to Attorney's Fees via RSS

By Cori Badgley and Emilio Camacho

In Monterey/Santa Cruz County Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Cypress Marina Heights LP (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1500, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, held that deeds acquiring property from a redevelopment agency required the purchaser/developer to pay prevailing wages to the construction workers. In addition, the appellate court also held that plaintiffs were entitled to $73,167.50 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.Continue Reading Bad Deeds Make Bad Law

By Cori Badgley

The long legal battle over Pacific Lumber Company’s logging of timberland in Humboldt County continues as the parties now fight over attorney’s fees. In Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, the Supreme Court finally resolved all of the substantive issues on the merits. In summary, the Supreme Court set aside the department’s approval of a sustained yield plan based on two of petitioner’s arguments, invalidated a portion of the incidental take permit, and upheld the department’s streambed alteration agreement and certification of the environmental impact report/environmental impact statement. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the matter was remanded back to the appellate court, and the appellate court heard arguments on whether petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees and in what amount. (Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 217.)Continue Reading Money, Money, Money: Pacific Lumber Co. Litigation Ends in Battle over Attorney’s Fees

Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update

Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2011.

In January and February 2011 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining.
Continue Reading REMINDER! Save the Date!

Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update

Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2010!

In January and February 2010 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining. In addition, the following hot topics for 2010 will be discussed:

Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting
Water Supply Legislation
CEQA Litigation: Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Subdivision Map Extension
Interpreting Development Agreements
Endangered Species Act
Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations: Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.

Modesto Conference

Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010
Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Redding Conference

Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010
Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Sacramento Conference

Date: Friday, February 12, 2010
Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
Registration: 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
Program: 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon
There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available.

An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.
Continue Reading Reminder! Save the Date

By Glen C. Hansen

In County of Sacramento v. Sandison (May 29, 2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 646, the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, held that the limitation on attorneys’ fees awards in Government Code section 25845, subdivision (c), does not apply to awards granted under Civil Code section 1717, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032, 1033.5, based on an attorneys’ fees provision in a written contract.
Continue Reading Limits on Attorneys’ Fees Awards Under Government Code Section 25845 are … Limited.

By Katherine J. Hart

The Riverwatch, et al. v. County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, et al. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438 case involves the battle over attorney fees awarded to Petitioners by the trial court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and proves that the courts are continuing the trend in awarding fees even for partially prevailing parties.
Continue Reading Attorney’s Fees in CEQA Cases: Hardly a Gamble Anymore

By Glen Hansen

In Silver Creek, LLC v. Blackrock Realty Advisors, Inc. (May 20, 2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1533, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that the trial court abused its discretion when it decided there was no prevailing party on a contract for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b), because the record clearly revealed that one party obtained greater relief on the contract in this mixed result case.
Continue Reading How Much Equitable Discretion Does a Trial Court Have in Deciding to Award Attorneys’ Fees When Litigation Results are Mixed?

By Glen C. Hansen

Only in California can you (1) pay taxes to create and support an unconstitutional agency, (2) pay taxes so that the unconstitutional agency defends itself, (3) win a ruling on the unconstitutionality, (4) force a legislative change, and (5) retain the privilege of paying for your own attorneys fees. Who says government is broken?
Continue Reading Making Change, But Losing The Dollars

by Elias E. Guzman

In Connerly v. State Personnel Board (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, the California Supreme Court recently held that amicus curiae were not liable for private attorney general fees because they were not an “opposing party” under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. This opinion provides significant protection to an amicus curiae from having to pay attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute.
Continue Reading Friends Don’t Let Friends Pay Attorney’s Fees