Recent Articles
Choice of Law, Prevailing Party: Where Plaintiffs Dismissed Contractual Claims, A Defendant Was Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees In The Suit, Excluding Prior SLAPP Fee Recovery, Because Defendant Forfeited The Claim That New York Law Applied By Using California Law At Important Junctures Of The Litigation
Defendant’s Fee Request Was For Around $3.215 Million. Although this litigation was fierce, with defense parties winning SLAPP fees and contractual fees under California law,…
Sanctions: D.C. Circuit Sanctions An Appellee In A Federal Appeal By Striking Its Responding Brief For Containing AI Hallucinations
In A Per Curiam Published Order, Concurring Justice Touches On Some Other Issues In The Case. The D.C. Circuit federal appeals court has published a…
Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Six Plaintiffs Obtaining A $3.85 Million Jury Verdict After Seven Years Of Litigation Were Awarded $4,815,033.25 In Attorney’s Fees
Fee-Shifting Statute Was A Provision In The Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In Moore, et al. v. Rubin, No. 25-613-v (2d Dist. Sept. 4, 2026), the Second…
Family Law: In Case Where Both Ex-Husband And Ex-Wife Had Substantial Assets, The Lower Court Erred in Denying Family Code Section 2030 Fees To Ex-Wife Because It Did Not Make Express Findings On Relative Access To Funds Or On Relative Ability To Pay
Case Remanded To Reconsider The 2030 Fee Request (Including If Fees Were Appropriate); Fees Were Properly Denied Under Family Code Section 3557 Relating To Child…
Celebrities, Intellectual Property: After Winning The Merits Of Her Royalty Suit Against Mary Bono Who Invoked Copyright Termination Principles, Cher Loses The Secondary Battle For $1,023,605.50 In Attorney’s Fees Under The Copyright Act’s Fee-Shifting Provision
The Dispute, At Its Core, Was A Contract Dispute, Not Triggering Copyright Act Fee-Shifting. Sonny and Cher were icons in the music industry. Under a…
POOF!, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Appellate Court Reversed CDAFA Jury Verdict Against Two Defendants, Prevailing Party Fees To Plaintiff Went POOF! On Appeal
Lower Court’s Denial Of Fees To A Prevailing Defendant Had To Be Reassessed Under The Court’s Earlier Hay Opinion Relating to Prevailing Defense CDAFA Fee Recovery Penal…
Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: Where Plaintiff Won On 2 Out Of Eight Claims In CFRA/FEHA Case Against Defendant, Reduced $770,310 Fee Award Was Affirmed On Appeal
The Request Was $2.6 Million (Lodestar Plus 2.0 Positive Multiplier), With Lower Court Reducing Some Hourly Rates And Applying A Further 25% Reduction For Flawed…
SLAPP: Prevailing Defendant On A SLAPP Motion Targeting Abuse Of Process Claims Contractually Bargained Away Its Right To SLAPP Fee Recovery Under Two Settlement Agreements
Defendant Was Paid Under The Settlement Agreements, With The Appellate Court Finding No Public Policy Bar Against Bargaining Away SLAPP Fee Recovery. In Patel v. Vaghashia,…
Private Attorney General: Petitioner Winning Writ Of Mandate On City Clerk’s Removal Of Recall Petition Allegations Against Councilmember Was Erroneously Denied Private Attorney General Fees Based On The Case Not Providing A Significant Benefit
Majority Reversed And Remanded In A 2-1 Decision Based On Free Speech Principles, While A Dissenting Justice Found No Abuse Of Discretion In The Lower…
Billing Record Substantiation: Where Motion Paperwork And Billing Records Were Clear, Lower Court Erroneously Found Surety’s Request For Subsequent Fees Were Duplicative Where The Undisputed Evidence Showed The Second Request Involved Work For A Different Time Frame From The First Request
The Matter Was Remanded For Purposes Of Determining Whether The Second Requested Fees Were Reasonable In Nature. This next post shows the value of keeping…
Costs, Section 998: After Refusing To Grant Terminating Sanctions And After The Defense Won A Jury Trial Against Plaintiff, The Lower Court Erred In Taxing Expert Witness Fees Altogether Given The Valid/Reasonable/Good Faith Section 998 Offer Made By The Defense
Case Remanded To Consider The Defense Request For $288,733.55 In Expert Witness Fees. CCP section 998 can be a game changer, as it was in…
Allocation, Section 1717: Where Trial Court Ordered Apportionment, Which Prevailing Parties Could Not Accomplish, 27% Of Requested Fee Award Was The Result
Prevailing Parties’ Counsel Passed, But The Lower Court Gave An Opportunity To Allocate—They Could Not, But It Is The Fee Claimants’ Burden Of Proof. The…
Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation: Seller Prevailing In Buyer Case To Pay Buyer’s Broker’s Commission Was Denied Attorney’s Fees Based On A Narrow Fees Clause
Prevailing Seller Failed To Apportion Fees On Defending The Compensable Contract Claim, With No Recovery Allowable Under The Non-compensable Tort Claims. This case reinforces the…
Ethics: New York State Bar’s Ethics Committee Issues An Opinion Indicating That Attorneys Can Charge For Answering Billing Questions If Advance Notice Is Given To A Client
Ethics Opinion 1299 Is What Was Issued; Time On Genuine Billing Disputes Should Not Be Billed. New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics…
Class Actions: Class Counsel Awarded About $146.8 Million In Attorney’s Fees In Privacy Action Where A Jury Awarded $425 Million To The Certified Class
Lodestar Was Almost 50,000 Hours At A Blended Hourly Rate Of $1,143, Enhanced By A 2.59 Positive Multiplier. Rodriguez v. Google, LLC, No. 20-cv-04688-RS (N.D….
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.
-
Choice of Law, Prevailing Party: Where Plaintiffs Dismissed Contractual Claims, A Defendant Was Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees In The Suit, Excluding Prior SLAPP Fee Recovery, Because Defendant Forfeited The Claim That New York Law Applied By Using California Law At Important Junctures Of The Litigation
Defendant’s Fee Request Was For Around $3.215 Million. Although this litigation was fierce, with defense parties winning SLAPP fees and contractual fees under California law, one defendant who never raised a conflict of law issue in previous crucial junctures was not allowed a substantial attorney’s fees recovery because it never argued clearly before the fee…
-
Sanctions: D.C. Circuit Sanctions An Appellee In A Federal Appeal By Striking Its Responding Brief For Containing AI Hallucinations
In A Per Curiam Published Order, Concurring Justice Touches On Some Other Issues In The Case. The D.C. Circuit federal appeals court has published a per curiam order in Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 2023-CAB-005422 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 3, 2026) where it sanctioned a firm representing an appellee (federal parlance for respondent, if…
-
Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Six Plaintiffs Obtaining A $3.85 Million Jury Verdict After Seven Years Of Litigation Were Awarded $4,815,033.25 In Attorney’s Fees
Fee-Shifting Statute Was A Provision In The Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In Moore, et al. v. Rubin, No. 25-613-v (2d Dist. Sept. 4, 2026), the Second Circuit was reviewing an attorney’s fees award under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which has a provision allowing a prevailing plaintiff to obtain recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees, scrutinizing…
-
Family Law: In Case Where Both Ex-Husband And Ex-Wife Had Substantial Assets, The Lower Court Erred in Denying Family Code Section 2030 Fees To Ex-Wife Because It Did Not Make Express Findings On Relative Access To Funds Or On Relative Ability To Pay
Case Remanded To Reconsider The 2030 Fee Request (Including If Fees Were Appropriate); Fees Were Properly Denied Under Family Code Section 3557 Relating To Child Support Enforcement. Marriage of Trousset and Kelley, Case No. A172398 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2026) (published), is an interesting opinion on the need to make express findings on the…
-
Celebrities, Intellectual Property: After Winning The Merits Of Her Royalty Suit Against Mary Bono Who Invoked Copyright Termination Principles, Cher Loses The Secondary Battle For $1,023,605.50 In Attorney’s Fees Under The Copyright Act’s Fee-Shifting Provision
The Dispute, At Its Core, Was A Contract Dispute, Not Triggering Copyright Act Fee-Shifting. Sonny and Cher were icons in the music industry. Under a 1978 marriage settlement agreement, they agreed to split music royalties as community property, among other assets. After Sonny’s death years later, Cher sued Sonny’s second wife Mary Bono (in an…
-
POOF!, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Appellate Court Reversed CDAFA Jury Verdict Against Two Defendants, Prevailing Party Fees To Plaintiff Went POOF! On Appeal
Lower Court’s Denial Of Fees To A Prevailing Defendant Had To Be Reassessed Under The Court’s Earlier Hay Opinion Relating to Prevailing Defense CDAFA Fee Recovery Penal Code section 502(e)(2) of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) allows a trial court to discretionarily award attorney’s fees, although there is no prevailing party language. In Hay…