Recent Articles
Requests For Admission, Section 998: In Automobile Collision Case, CCP § 998 Offer Was Not Invalid For Requiring Consent By Defense Insurer Carriers, And Costs Of Proof Sanctions Properly Denied To Plaintiff
However, The Reasonableness Of The 998 Offer—Not Ruled On By The Lower Court—Had To Be Revisited On Remand. Matthews v. Ryan, Case Nos. B335736 et…
Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $33,712.91 Fee Award To Prevailing Party Neighbor Was Affirmed In A Complicated Civil Harassment Matter
$650 Hourly Rate For 15-Year Attorney And $450 For A Paralegal Were Found Reasonable In A Contentious Santa Clara County Case. Two neighbors had very…
Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $599,370 Attorney’s Fees Award Under A Settlement Agreement Confirmed Because Challenging Party Waived An Appeal
Case Also Has A Good Discussion Of Trial Court Retention Of Jurisdiction To Enforce A Settlement After The 1993 Amendment To CCP § 664.6. Hutchinson…
Deadlines, Lodestar, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: In Probate Quabble, $63,958.75 To A Prevailing Party For Appeal Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion
Payment By Appellant Did Not Waive Appeal Rights; Trial Court Implicitly Extended Fee Motion Filing Deadline Due To Docketing Issues. In Skytte v. Skytte, Case…
Section 998: Assignee Mother Of Claims Bound Her Assignor Son To Acceptance Of A 998 Offer Such That Son Could Not Bring Another Suit Against 998 Offeror
Lack Of Standing And Res Judicata Drove The Conclusion That The Acceptance Was Final On The Dispute. Burke v. Benworth Capital Partners, LLC, Case No….
Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Winning Tort Claims, But Losing One Contract Claim Against Some Defendants, Was Not Exposed To Attorney’s Fees By Two Set Of Defendants
In Fact, Because He Prevailed, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fees Against One Set Of Defendants, But Not A Nonsignatory Because He Only Brought Tort Claims….
Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation: Broad Fees Clause Allowed Law Firm To Recover Both Trial and Appellate Fees For Prevailing In An Action/Appeal Attempting To Void An Arbitration Agreement
Total Fees to Law Firm Came To $416,680.30. Fee-shifting can be a game changer in litigation, including litigation relating to an arbitration where the fees…
Allocation, Homeowner Associations, Lodestar: Plaintiff Replacement Trustee Losing Condo Fire Repair Lawsuit Under Governing Documents And Interrelated Tort Claims Properly Assessed With Attorney’s Fees In Favor Of HOA And Condo Manager
$102,547.50 Was The Award, With No Apportionment Necessary And With It Being Reasonable In Nature. LaPay v. The Fairways Homeowner’s Assn., Case No. E082827 (4th…
Section 1717: Illegal Contract, Void From The Start, Did Not Allow Plaintiff Prevailing Solely On a Negligent Misrepresentation Claim To Garner Fees
Lower Court Determined Both Parties “In Pari Delicto,” So No Fees Were Warranted. The Fourth District, Division Three, in S&S Engineering and Construction v. Ashby…
Consumer Statutes, Lodestar: Lower Court’s 87.6% Reduction In A Lemon Law Fee Request Was Reversed As An Abuse Of Discretion Based On The Record On The Lodestar Analysis
Awarding $15,000 In A Lemon Law Case Requesting $81,455.83 In Fees/Costs Was Not Fair And Required A Revisit. In Rosales v. Nissan North America, Inc.,…
Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Undertaking: Prevailing Defendant In A Derivative Lawsuit—After Losing A Bond Motion–Can Seek Trial And Appellate Costs, Not Limited By The $50,000 Bonding Amount Specified In Corporations Code Section 17709.02
Section 17709.02 Does Not Trump The CCP § 1032 Trial Routine Costs Statute Or The CRC 8.891 Appellate Routine Costs Provision. In Barrios v. Chraghchian,…
Arbitration: $220,817 Arbitration Fee Award Is Affirmed In Favor Of One Plaintiff, Because Moncharsh Did Not Show A Basis For Arbitral Reversal
Lower Court’s Denial Of Post-Judgment Vacatur Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff/Employee Was Justified. In Fishman v. Advisors LLP, Case No. B334179 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan….
Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers: $2,376,677.50 Fee Award Is Affirmed On Appeal
Lower Court Did Reduce The Request By $348,208.50, And It Correctly Denied A Positive Multiplier Request By Plaintiff. In Maas v. McKinnon Broadcasting Co., Case…
Allocation, Section 1717: Appellate Court Affirms A Substantial Fee And Costs Award In A Mixed Contract/Tort Case Based On Santisas
Case Drew Three Opinions, A Concurrence Finding 70% Defense Allocation For Tort Claims Was Reasonable, But With A Dissenting Justice Finding More Delineation Between Contract/Tort…
Homeowner Associations: Losing Party’s Failure To Oppose Prevailing Neighbor’s Fee Award Was Fatal On Appeal
A Forfeiture Occurred. Bauer v. Likhterman, Case No. G064695 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 12, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Scott for a 3-0 panel,…
Services
About Cal Attorneys Fees
Cal Attorneys Fees is a trusted legal research platform designed for California lawyers to efficiently review case law and access concise abstracts relevant to their ongoing matters. With over 10,000 cited cases and articles, it serves as a comprehensive repository for informed, strategic advocacy.
Contact Us
Have questions or need support? Reach out to the Cal Attorneys Fees team for assistance with case law access, article submissions, or account inquiries — we’re here to help California lawyers work smarter and faster.
-
Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $33,712.91 Fee Award To Prevailing Party Neighbor Was Affirmed In A Complicated Civil Harassment Matter
$650 Hourly Rate For 15-Year Attorney And $450 For A Paralegal Were Found Reasonable In A Contentious Santa Clara County Case. Two neighbors had very bad experiences with each other, with one neighbor obtaining a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) and being awarded $33,712.91 in prevailing party attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 against the…
-
Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $599,370 Attorney’s Fees Award Under A Settlement Agreement Confirmed Because Challenging Party Waived An Appeal
Case Also Has A Good Discussion Of Trial Court Retention Of Jurisdiction To Enforce A Settlement After The 1993 Amendment To CCP § 664.6. Hutchinson v. Lewis Towing 2, Inc., Case No. F088314 (5th Dist. Jan. 27, 2026) (unpublished) has a good discussion on two issues: (1) retention of jurisdiction against dismissed defendants under CCP…
-
Deadlines, Lodestar, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: In Probate Quabble, $63,958.75 To A Prevailing Party For Appeal Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion
Payment By Appellant Did Not Waive Appeal Rights; Trial Court Implicitly Extended Fee Motion Filing Deadline Due To Docketing Issues. In Skytte v. Skytte, Case No. G064930 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished), a probate dispute among certain family members may be approaching a close after an award of appellate attorney’s fees of…
-
Section 998: Assignee Mother Of Claims Bound Her Assignor Son To Acceptance Of A 998 Offer Such That Son Could Not Bring Another Suit Against 998 Offeror
Lack Of Standing And Res Judicata Drove The Conclusion That The Acceptance Was Final On The Dispute. Burke v. Benworth Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. G064478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished) is an interesting case which confirms that an accepted and paid CCP § 998 offer by an assignee will divest the…
-
Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Winning Tort Claims, But Losing One Contract Claim Against Some Defendants, Was Not Exposed To Attorney’s Fees By Two Set Of Defendants
In Fact, Because He Prevailed, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fees Against One Set Of Defendants, But Not A Nonsignatory Because He Only Brought Tort Claims. Appeals, although the odds are against them, can sometimes result in a reversal of fortune. That did occur in Moses v. Rok Drinks, Ltd., Case No. B339392 (2d Dist., Div.…