Recent Articles
Requests for Admission, Sanctions: 1/3 DCA Remands Trial Court’s Denial Of RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions As An Abuse Of Discretion
Estate of Alders, Case No. A171324 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished) examines the diligence required from both litigants and superior courts to…
Arbitration, Celebrities: In A 2-1 Split Opinion, The 2/7 DCA Holds That A Law Firm Prevailing In A MFAA Arbitration Was Not The Prevailing Party For Purposes Of Fees/Costs In That Proceeding Because It Waived The Argument In Front Of A CAA Arbitrator And The Superior Court Could Discretionarily Deny Fees Based On The Arbitrator Determining There Was No Prevailing Party In Arbitration Award Confirmation Proceedings
Dissenting Justice Saw Things Differently: Superior Court Had To Independently Determine MFAA Award Issue Or Remand To The Arbitrator To Decide. Allan Law Group, P.C….
Allocation, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Could Make Allocation Of Fees Between Contract/Tort Claims, But It Erred In Not Allowing Opposing Party To Review/Contest A Supplemental Declaration From The Fee Claimant To Support The Final Fee Award
The Matter Is Remanded To Look At A Restudy Of The Supplemental Declaration. Due process is alive and well in the attorney’s fees area, as…
Private Attorney General: $165,072.50 Attorney’s Fees Award On CEQA Win To Prevailing Litigant Is Affirmed On Appeal
Housing Accountability Act Standards Can Be Factored Into The Equation, With Trade Union Affiliations Not Showing It Made A Difference On The Financial Cost/Benefit Factor….
Sanctions: First District Court Of Appeal Publishes Opinion Informing In Pro Per Litigants That They Cannot Use And Are Subject For Sanctions When Relying On AI Hallucinations
This Case Builds On Cases Applicable To Attorneys, But Extends The Prohibition To In Pro Per Litigants. In Sheerer v. Panas, Case No. A171804 (1st…
Costs, Deadlines, POOF!: Although Plaintiff Won On The Merits, Substantial Fee Recovery and Routine Costs Recovery Were Reversed As A Matter Of Law
Fees Were Not Allowable Without A Fees Motion; Costs Were Not Allowable Because Failure To Use Judicial Council Worksheet Gave No Basis For A Conclusion…
Costs, Deadlines, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CHRO Prevailing Party On Modification Request And Appeal Work On Certain Orders Was Entitled To The Lower Court’s Fee Recovery
However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of…
Appealability, SLAPP: Order Denying or Granting A SLAPP Fees Motion Is Not Appealable
2/7 DCA Decides To Follow Its Prior Opinion in Doe v. Luster. In Clapkin v. Levin, Case No. B340606 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 16,…
Liens For Attorney Fees: Third District Holds That A Single Declaratory Relief Action Against Both The Clients And Competing Attorney Lien Claimant Is A Permissible Way To Enforce Attorney Lien Claims On Settlement Or Judgment Proceeds
Second Attorney Obtaining A Recovery Does Not Have To Wait For Clients’ Former Attorney To Bring A Separate Individual Action Against The Clients. In Jacobs…
Family Law: Marriage of Hoch Opinion Now Published
Case Held That Not Stipulating To Legal Separation On Religious Grounds And Not Particularizing Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Request Led To A Reversal. On…
Common Fund, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Winning Derivative Claim On Behalf Of A Limited Partnership Was Properly Awarded Fees Under Corporations Code Section 15910.05(b) Out Of The Damage Recovery Obtained By The LP Against Defendant
Section 15910.05(b) Is Not Displaced By Common Fund/Substantial Benefit Theories, Although Those Theories Also Supported The Fee Award. In Duboff v. Schermer, Case Nos. B343324…
Lis Pendens, Prevailing Party, Probate: Respondents In Probate Dispute Venued In Marin County Won Attorney’s Fees In Successfully Expunging A Lis Pendens And Then Won More Substantial Fees As The Prevailing Parties After Petitioner Voluntarily Dismissed A 850 Petition
Various Statutes Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement In The Probate Case. One of our readers, Ronald Foreman of San Francisco’s Foreman & Brasso, sent us…
Costs, Section 998: Where A Losing Cross-Defendant Was Never Served With A Section 998 Offer, Trial Court Erred In Awarding Expert Witness Expenses Against Her
Costs Recovery Was Void Under CCP § 473(d), With A Remand Ordered To See If Other Costs Were Allowable. Warren v. Shahar, Case No. B339274…
Lodestar, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Deed Restriction Document Gave Rise to Contractual Attorney’s Fees
$144,210 Was The Fees Award, With Attorney Declaration Of Efforts Sufficient And Rejecting The Notion That City’s Lead Counsel’s Salary Guided The Lodestar Analysis. In…
Probate: Counsel Appointed To Represent A Conservatee Pursuant To Probate Code Section 1471 Was Entitled To Conservatorship-Related Compensation ….
However, Compensation For A Civil Proceeding Separate From The Conservatorship Could Not Be Compensated Under 1471; Rather Probate Code Section 2430 Requisites Had To Be…
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.
-
Requests for Admission, Sanctions: 1/3 DCA Remands Trial Court’s Denial Of RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions As An Abuse Of Discretion
Estate of Alders, Case No. A171324 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished) examines the diligence required from both litigants and superior courts to secure costs-of-proof sanctions for unreasonable denial of RFAs under CCP § 2033.420(a). There, a will contest proponent lost, via a summary judgment and trial, all of his claims, with the…
-
Arbitration, Celebrities: In A 2-1 Split Opinion, The 2/7 DCA Holds That A Law Firm Prevailing In A MFAA Arbitration Was Not The Prevailing Party For Purposes Of Fees/Costs In That Proceeding Because It Waived The Argument In Front Of A CAA Arbitrator And The Superior Court Could Discretionarily Deny Fees Based On The Arbitrator Determining There Was No Prevailing Party In Arbitration Award Confirmation Proceedings
Dissenting Justice Saw Things Differently: Superior Court Had To Independently Determine MFAA Award Issue Or Remand To The Arbitrator To Decide. Allan Law Group, P.C. v. Stewart, Case No. B333681 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) involves an interesting intersection between Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) and California Arbitration Act (CAA) principles where…
-
Allocation, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Could Make Allocation Of Fees Between Contract/Tort Claims, But It Erred In Not Allowing Opposing Party To Review/Contest A Supplemental Declaration From The Fee Claimant To Support The Final Fee Award
The Matter Is Remanded To Look At A Restudy Of The Supplemental Declaration. Due process is alive and well in the attorney’s fees area, as Tres Caminos, LP v. MGP XI US Properties LLC, Case No. D085539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) demonstrates. It also shows the broad discretion given to a…
-
Private Attorney General: $165,072.50 Attorney’s Fees Award On CEQA Win To Prevailing Litigant Is Affirmed On Appeal
Housing Accountability Act Standards Can Be Factored Into The Equation, With Trade Union Affiliations Not Showing It Made A Difference On The Financial Cost/Benefit Factor. In Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility v. City of Inglewood, Case No. B345195 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 19, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner won a CEQA challenge based on Housing Accountability…
-
Sanctions: First District Court Of Appeal Publishes Opinion Informing In Pro Per Litigants That They Cannot Use And Are Subject For Sanctions When Relying On AI Hallucinations
This Case Builds On Cases Applicable To Attorneys, But Extends The Prohibition To In Pro Per Litigants. In Sheerer v. Panas, Case No. A171804 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 19, 2026) (partially published; AI discussion published), the appellate court made clear that the recent California case authority which prohibits AI hallucinations equally applies to in…
-
Costs, Deadlines, POOF!: Although Plaintiff Won On The Merits, Substantial Fee Recovery and Routine Costs Recovery Were Reversed As A Matter Of Law
Fees Were Not Allowable Without A Fees Motion; Costs Were Not Allowable Because Failure To Use Judicial Council Worksheet Gave No Basis For A Conclusion On Whether The Costs Were Reasonable, In Response To Defendant’s Motion To Tax Costs. Pelloni v. Mirshahi, Case Nos. B336950 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished)…