Recent Articles
Section 998: California Supreme Court Rules That Section 998 Offers With Alternative Options Are Valid, If Properly Structured With Certainty For The Options
It Disagrees With The Court of Appeal’s Categorical Invalidity Argument. In Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. S287946 (Cal. Supreme Court…
Family Law: $159,669.44 Award In Needs-Based Fees To Ex-Wife Was Sustained On Appeal
Record Showed A Disparity In Financial Conditions, With Ex-Wife’s Counsel’s Showing For The Fees Being Sufficient In Nature. In Marriage of Bridges, Case No. F088836…
Appeal Sanctions, Discovery, Sanctions: $7,870.41 Discovery Sanctions Affirmed On Appeal For Failure To Produce Metadata For A Crucial Meeting Summary Which Was The Bases For An Employee’s Termination
Defense’s Privilege Objections Found Unpersuasive, But A Request for Appeal Sanctions Was Denied. The lower court in Romero v. Gopher Media LLC, Case No. D086508…
Appeal Sanctions, Ethics: Appellants’ Counsel’s Disparaging The Trial Judge Of Being Biased, Without Any Support, Drew A $1,000 Contempt Sanction
Plus The Opinion Had To Be Reported To The State Bar. A Company Hungary KFT v. Bespalov, Case No. B336640a (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug….
Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories: $1,062,813.20 Fee Award In Favor Of Corporate Executives And Directors Is Affirmed On Appeal In Contentious Battle Involving Contracts Between Plaintiff And Banc Of California Executives/Directors
Fee Clause Broadly Encompassed Any Dispute Resulting In Litigation, Executives/Directors Were Fee Clause Nonsignatories Entitled To Fees, And No Apportionment Was Needed Given Breadth Of…
SLAPP: $7,410 Fee And $956.79 Cost Awards Against Non-Prevailing Plaintiff, Whose Whole Complaint Was SLAPPed, Holds Up On Appeal
Lower Court Substantially Cut Defense Counsel’s Claimed Hours And Cut The Hourly Rate Request. In Mirjafarifiroozabadi v. Man, Case No. G066134 (4th Dist., Div. 3…
Private Attorney General: Coalition Of City Employees/Union Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees, Not Disclosed In Amount, Based On A Failure To Meaningfully Bargain Over A Labor Dispute—You Labor Attorneys Know The Importance Of This
Private Attorney General Elements Were Met, Under An Abuse Of Discretion Standard. Although we do not know the amount of the fees awarded in City…
Landlord/Tenant, Mediation, Section 1717: $69,560 Fee Award To Tenant For Defensing An Unlawful Detainer Suit Based On A Defective Notice To Cure Or Quit Is Affirmed
Mediation Noncompliance And Fee Cap Arguments Are Rejected On Appeal. In Karrass v. Carey, Case No. B344608 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 30, 2026) (unpublished),…
Costs: Awardable Appeal Costs Are Specifically Listed, Not Incorporating A More General “Necessary/Reasonable To The Conduct Of The Litigation” Test Applicable To Trial Discretionary Routine Cost Awards
CRC, Rule 8.278 Is More Constricted In Scope Gigena v. Finch, Case No. C104947 (2d Dist. July 30, 2026) (unpublished) involved an appeal of appellate…
Intellectual Property: Over $600,000 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Defendant In A Lanham Act Case Is Affirmed On Appeal
Plaintiff Won Nominal Damages Of $1 And Disgorgement, Although The Disgorgement Award Was Reversed As A Matter Of Law By The Ninth Circuit. The Ninth…
Judgment Enforcement, Paralegal Time: Post-Judgment Enforcement Fee Award Of $356,223 (Reduced From The Fee Request) Was Affirmed On Appeal
Disbarred Attorney’s Work Effort Was Allowed, Although His Hourly Rate Was Reduced In Performing Paralegal Services. In Hope and Trust Trading, Inc. v. Ciling, Case…
Fee Clause Interpretation, Partition, Section 1717: Denial Of 1717 Fees Reversed; Grant Of Partition Fees Reversed But Without Prejudice To Renew In The Future
Gives A Potential Litigant Over A Jointly Inherited House A Chance To Obtain Some Trial And Appellate Fees In The Future. Tran v. Tran, Case…
Mediation: $31,320 Fee Award And $1,870.23 In Costs Affirmed Because Prevailing Party Did Not Refuse to Mediate
Emails Showed No Refusal To Mediate. In GMG Development LLC v. Riddell, Case No. B350616 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 27, 2026) (unpublished), the prevailing…
Retainer Agreements: Judgment In Law Firm’s Favor For Unpaid Client Bills Was Affirmed On Appeal
Although Retainer Agreement Had A Limited Scope of Engagement, The Record Showed Client Made Promises To Ratify The Expanded Engagement And Pay Justifying A Judgment…
Family Law: $35,108 Fee Award Under Sections 2030 And 271 Was No Abuse Of Discretion
Ex-Husband Was The Higher Wage Earner, Such That The Record Supported Needs-Based Fees And An Award Of 271 Sanctions To Ex-Wife. Marriage of Stout, Case…
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.
-
Section 998: California Supreme Court Rules That Section 998 Offers With Alternative Options Are Valid, If Properly Structured With Certainty For The Options
It Disagrees With The Court of Appeal’s Categorical Invalidity Argument. In Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. S287946 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 6, 2026) (published), the California Supreme Court endorsed CCP section 998 offers containing alternative options for acceptance, as long as clear in nature. Here is the heart of the…
-
Family Law: $159,669.44 Award In Needs-Based Fees To Ex-Wife Was Sustained On Appeal
Record Showed A Disparity In Financial Conditions, With Ex-Wife’s Counsel’s Showing For The Fees Being Sufficient In Nature. In Marriage of Bridges, Case No. F088836 et al. (5th Dist. Aug. 5, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife was awarded Family Code section 2030/2032 needs-based fees of $159,669.44 where the record showed husband had liquidated substantial assets for material…
-
Appeal Sanctions, Discovery, Sanctions: $7,870.41 Discovery Sanctions Affirmed On Appeal For Failure To Produce Metadata For A Crucial Meeting Summary Which Was The Bases For An Employee’s Termination
Defense’s Privilege Objections Found Unpersuasive, But A Request for Appeal Sanctions Was Denied. The lower court in Romero v. Gopher Media LLC, Case No. D086508 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 5, 2026) (unpublished) imposed $7,870.41 in discovery sanctions on defendants for failing to produce a crucial meeting summary used to justify plaintiff’s employment termination in…
-
Appeal Sanctions, Ethics: Appellants’ Counsel’s Disparaging The Trial Judge Of Being Biased, Without Any Support, Drew A $1,000 Contempt Sanction
Plus The Opinion Had To Be Reported To The State Bar. A Company Hungary KFT v. Bespalov, Case No. B336640a (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 4, 2026) (published) is an opinion where an appellants’ counsel was assessed with a $1,000 contempt sanction for disparaging a trial judge, without evidence, in appellate briefing. The panel found…
-
Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories: $1,062,813.20 Fee Award In Favor Of Corporate Executives And Directors Is Affirmed On Appeal In Contentious Battle Involving Contracts Between Plaintiff And Banc Of California Executives/Directors
Fee Clause Broadly Encompassed Any Dispute Resulting In Litigation, Executives/Directors Were Fee Clause Nonsignatories Entitled To Fees, And No Apportionment Was Needed Given Breadth Of Fees Clause. In Sugarman v. Benett, Case No. B338610 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 3, 2026) (unpublished), there was contentious, aggressive litigation involving plaintiff and his trust (plaintiff being a…
-
SLAPP: $7,410 Fee And $956.79 Cost Awards Against Non-Prevailing Plaintiff, Whose Whole Complaint Was SLAPPed, Holds Up On Appeal
Lower Court Substantially Cut Defense Counsel’s Claimed Hours And Cut The Hourly Rate Request. In Mirjafarifiroozabadi v. Man, Case No. G066134 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 31, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff’s entire Complaint was dismissed after the defense won a SLAPP motion. Defense counsel then moved for attorney’s fees, claiming 34.10 hours of work at a…