Recent Articles
Family Law: Grandfather’s Petition Under Family Code Section 3104 To Visit His Grandchildren Did Not Justify Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Opposing Custodial Wife Under Either Family Code Section 7605 Or As A Proceeding Subsequent To UPA Judgments Entered In A Prior Juvenile Dependency Case
Nothing Demonstrated That The Legislature Found That Fees Should Be Awarded In Grandparent Visitation Cases. Grandparents filing petitions for visitation of grandchildren under Family Code…
Allocation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $99,071.65 Fee Award To Defendant Sued In A Third Amended Complaint Affirmed On Appeal Based On 5-Year Granted Motion
Civil Code Section 1717 Justified The Award; No Apportionment Was Warranted Among Claims; And Lower Court Did Not Error In Calculating Fee Recovery From Date…
Allocation, Employment, Hourly Rates, Lodestar, Multipliers, Paralegal Time: $1,677,071.25 Full Request Fee Award In Bay Area FEHA Case Affirmed On Appeal With A Minor Remand Revisit
Plaintiff Was Awarded $3.272 Million Damages (With $3.5 Million Punitive Damages Ordered For A New Trial); Remand Issue Was That Clerical And Paralegal Work Should…
Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Prevailing Party Under Identity Theft And Debt Collection Statutes Was Prevailing Party So As To Be Entitled To Fees
Lower Court Properly Struck $251 In Expenses For Plaintiff Meeting With Attorney Because They Were Not Damages Under The Three Statutes, But Declaratory and Injunctive…
Landlord/Tenant: Where Tenant Won A Security Deposit Return Dispute, Lower Court Erred In Limiting Recovery Of Costs To The Contractual Cap Of $1,000
However, The Cap Did Apply To Fees; So, If The Costs Were Under $1,000, Lower Court Can Reconsider If Any Fees Are Appropriate Up To…
Allocation, Multipliers, Private Attorney General: Close To $3 Million In Attorney’s Fees Award To Plaintiffs/Respondents Against CalPERS Is Affirmed On Appeal
Significant Benefit Was Conferred, And No Need For Apportionment Where Successful And Unsuccessful Claims Were Inextricably Intertwined. In Liu v. Bd. of Adm. of CalPERS,…
Requests For Admission: 4/3 DCA Publishes Cost-Of-Proof Order, Affirmed, To Emphasize RFAs Must Be Admitted Even Partially And Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Must Be Precisely Delineated For The Work Incurred To Prove The Denied RFAs
In The End, $1,960 In Cost-Of-Proof Fees Were Awarded (Out Of A Requested $81,875) And $25,741.20 Routine Costs Requests Denied In Entirety. We do have…
Deadlines, Family Law: Deadline To File Fee Motion For Fees Under Family Code Section 6344 Is Governed By CRC 3.1702 Deadline Rules
No Exception Applied To Family Matters, With The Family Law Court Not Expressly Reserving The Matter For Later Junctures. In In re Marriage of A.O….
Deadlines, Private Attorney General: 1/4 DCA Holds That Fee Motion Is Timely Filed If Filed 2 Court Days After Electronic Service Of Notice Of Entry of Judgment
Although A Validation Action Is Involved, The Broader Reasoning Gives Some Extension Days Past A Jurisdictional Appeal Deadline For Civil Appeals In General. Alameda County…
Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Respondent In Case Where CHROA Petition Was Dismissed And Where There Was Informal Agreement On Future Behavior, Had His Fee/Costs Denial Affirmed On Appeal
$9,193.30 Fee/Costs Award Denied, With Appellate Court Determining Respondent Was Not The Prevailing Party, Was No Abuse Of Discretion. CCP § 527.6(a) does allow a…
Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees, Trade Secrets: $11.4 Million In Fees/Costs Awarded To Plaintiff Prevailing In A Trade Secret Case In Federal District Court
Sanctions Were Imposed On Defense Counsel After Jury’s Compensatory and Punitive Damages Verdicts, A Preliminary Injunction Was Entered, And District Judge Made Salient Observations About…
Allocation, SLAPP: Another Case Determines That Substantial Success Justifies SLAPP Fee Recovery, Where Intertwined Time Did Not Need To Be Allocated
However, Reduced Fee Award Was Issued, And It Was Affirmed On Appeal. Some of our posts do intersect, so this one is somewhat of an…
Allocation, SLAPP: Because Impact Of SLAPP Motion Is Paramount, No Need To Apportion Work On Unchallenged Claims
However, $155,255.98 Reduced Fee Award, Out Of A Requested $210,227.48, Is Affirmed On Appeal. In Advanced Orthopedic Center, Inc. v. Regal Medical Group, Inc., Case…
Private Attorney General: Reduced Fee Award To Prevailing Party, Based On Limited Success And Overlitigation, Was Affirmed On Appeal
Prevailing Party Only Obtained Petition Relief Based On General Prayer Clause, With Lower Court Granting A Remedy To The Prevailing Party–$53,679.63 Out Of $322,798.50 Fee…
Choice Of Law, Insurance: Appellate Court Sustains A Lower Court’s Ruling That An Insured’s Invocation Of Delaware’s Bad Faith Litigation Expense Exception For Fee Recovery Was Procedural So That California Did Not Have To Apply It
Case Has An Interesting Discussion, Under A Choice Of Law Analysis, Whether A Fee Claim Is Procedural Or Substantive, And It Was Procedural In The…
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.
-
Family Law: Grandfather’s Petition Under Family Code Section 3104 To Visit His Grandchildren Did Not Justify Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Opposing Custodial Wife Under Either Family Code Section 7605 Or As A Proceeding Subsequent To UPA Judgments Entered In A Prior Juvenile Dependency Case
Nothing Demonstrated That The Legislature Found That Fees Should Be Awarded In Grandparent Visitation Cases. Grandparents filing petitions for visitation of grandchildren under Family Code section 3104 can sigh with relief based on the appellate court’s opinion in Timothy S. v. Sarah H., Case No. D087153 (4th Dist., Div. 1) (published). There, grandfather—who had custody…
-
Allocation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $99,071.65 Fee Award To Defendant Sued In A Third Amended Complaint Affirmed On Appeal Based On 5-Year Granted Motion
Civil Code Section 1717 Justified The Award; No Apportionment Was Warranted Among Claims; And Lower Court Did Not Error In Calculating Fee Recovery From Date The Other Side Began Work On The FAC. In Jones v. Eaton, Case No. B342733 (2d Dist. Div. 5 Nov. 2, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff named and sued individual defendant in…
-
Allocation, Employment, Hourly Rates, Lodestar, Multipliers, Paralegal Time: $1,677,071.25 Full Request Fee Award In Bay Area FEHA Case Affirmed On Appeal With A Minor Remand Revisit
Plaintiff Was Awarded $3.272 Million Damages (With $3.5 Million Punitive Damages Ordered For A New Trial); Remand Issue Was That Clerical And Paralegal Work Should Not Have Been Billed Out At A $925 Hourly Rate. Knight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. A172015 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 2, 2026) (unpublished) has a nice discussion…
-
Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Prevailing Party Under Identity Theft And Debt Collection Statutes Was Prevailing Party So As To Be Entitled To Fees
Lower Court Properly Struck $251 In Expenses For Plaintiff Meeting With Attorney Because They Were Not Damages Under The Three Statutes, But Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Solidified Prevailing Party Status. Plaintiff in UHG I, LLC v. Tran, Case No. H053223 (6th Dist. Nov. 2, 2026) (unpublished), was the victim of identity theft, suing a creditor…
-
Landlord/Tenant: Where Tenant Won A Security Deposit Return Dispute, Lower Court Erred In Limiting Recovery Of Costs To The Contractual Cap Of $1,000
However, The Cap Did Apply To Fees; So, If The Costs Were Under $1,000, Lower Court Can Reconsider If Any Fees Are Appropriate Up To The $1,000 Ceiling. In Aviles v. Shenon, Case Nos. B342634 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 2, 2026) (partially published; costs and fee discussion published), a tenant won a…
-
Allocation, Multipliers, Private Attorney General: Close To $3 Million In Attorney’s Fees Award To Plaintiffs/Respondents Against CalPERS Is Affirmed On Appeal
Significant Benefit Was Conferred, And No Need For Apportionment Where Successful And Unsuccessful Claims Were Inextricably Intertwined. In Liu v. Bd. of Adm. of CalPERS, Case No. B341221 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 29, 2026) (unpublished), lead plaintiff/respondent Liu on appeal, a class member of CalPERS, filed a CCP § 1094.5 writ mandate petition, on…