January 2025

Section 998: Seven Months Into Litigation, Med Mal Plaintiff Rejecting Section 998 Offer Properly Saddled With Costs-Shifting, Including Expert Witness Fees

Cases: Section 998

Acceptance Line With Request For Dismissal Was No Defect, With The Offer Made In Good Faith Based On Informative Litigation Activities.                In Standage v. Bruno, Case No. A165207 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 29, 2025) (unpublished), med mal plaintiff lost a case after the jury returned a defense verdict after less than two hours […]

Arbitration: 1/1 DCA Finds FAA Preemption Does Not Apply To CCP 30-Day Deadlines For Employers To Pay Arbitration Fees, Agreeing Its Analysis In Keeton—Accepted For California Supreme Court Review Pending A Determination In Hohenshelt—Was Correct

Cases: Arbitration

Matter Still In Flux, Although Opinion Found Most Intermediatory California Appellate Court Agree With No Preemption Conclusion, But With Federal Judges Split On The Issue.                The 1/1 DCA in Cohn-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc., Case No. A168297 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 29, 2025) (partially published) sided with its earlier interpretation in Keeton

Consumer Statutes: Prevailing Defendant In Lemon Law Case Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Reason Was That Applicable Consumer Statutes—Moss-Magnuson Act, Song-Beverly Act, And Consumers Legal Remedies Act—Trumped Section 1717 Because They Only Allow Fee Recovery To A Prevailing Consumer Or Plaintiff.                Martinez v. Sai Long Beach B, Inc., Case Nos. B320441 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion published) is part

Deadlines: Where Notice Of Superior Court’s Notice Of Decision In A De Novo Appeal Of An Administrative Citation Was File-Stamped And Mailed To The Parties In A Limited Superior Court Case, City Had 30 Days To File A Fees And Costs Motion

Cases: Deadlines

City Blew The 30-Day Deadline, Thinking The Longer 90-Day Period Applied.                If you are involved in a de novo appeal of an administrative order in a superior court limited case, you need to be extra diligent in observing deadlines to file motions for fees and costs because the deadlines are smaller.  Particular attention needs

Arbitration: $75,000 In Fees/$4,600 In Costs Award To Plaintiff On An Interactive-Process Claim Was Affirmed On Appeal Even Though Plaintiff Only Won $30,000 In Compensatory Damages

Cases: Arbitration

Dueling Appellate Sanctions Requests Were Denied Also.                In Rivas v. Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc., Case No. B337901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 27, 2025) (unpublished), parties in an employment dispute involving common law and FEHA claims proceeded to an arbitration, with plaintiff eventually winning $30,000 on an interactive-process claim only.  Later, the arbitrator awarded

Private Attorney General: Lower Court’s Award Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees To Plaintiff–Up To The Time That Defendant Agreed To Provide Primary Relief–Was Proper

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Sought Over $1.4 Million In Fees, With The Fee Award Being $75,961.50, And With A Positive Enhancement Rejected.                Limited success, such as where a defendant voluntarily changes their behavior, may mean that post-change fees are denied under the private attorney general fee-shifting statute, CCP § 1021.5.  That is what happened in Save Berkeley’s

Arbitration: Because Arbitration Was Governed By The FAA, Lower Court’s Order Denying Arbitration To Defendant Employer For Failure To Pay Arbitration Expenses Within 30 Days Was Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration

FAA Governance Of The Arbitration Process Was Dispositive.                In Boub v. Prime Healthcare, Case No. B334972 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 25, 2025) (unpublished), a lower court’s order denying a defendant employer’s motion to compel arbitration for failure to pay arbitration expenses within 30 days under CCP § 1281.98 was reversed because the FAA

SLAPP: Frivolous SLAPP Motion Exposed Plaintiff To $81,193.45 Attorney’s Fees

Cases: SLAPP

The Fee Award Was In An Unspecified, Reduced Amount.                Helix Media LLC v. Clark, Case No. B332861 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 23, 2025) (unpublished) reminds plaintiffs to be prudent in bringing SLAPP motions; plaintiff in the case had a SLAPP motion declared frivolous, resulting in a reduced attorney’s fees award of $81,193.45.

Sanctions: Sanctions Award Against Attorney Reversed Because Other Side Failed To Satisfy 21-Day Safe Harbor Notice Requirements

Cases: Sanctions

Because It Involved An Amended Complaint, That Pleading Could Have Been Withdrawn.                Attorney in Windsor v. Does 1-10, Case No. A167006 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 21, 2025) (unpublished) was hit with a CCP § 128.5 sanctions order because he failed to dismiss an amended complaint after a summary judgment was granted.  The sanctions

Scroll to Top