June 2025

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Awarding Fresno Rates To Attorney Litigating In Orange County And Slashing Fees/Cost Request By 82.9% Had Its Award Reversed And Remanded On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Venue Rates Had To Be Used And The Substantial “Haircut” Needed More Explanation.                What happened in Tidrick v. FCA US LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2025) (unpublished) is that lemon law plaintiffs requesting $82,719.33 in fees and costs ($74,275 in fees and $8,444.33 in costs) were only awarded a […]

Deadlines, Fees As Damages: Former Counsel In Contempt Proceeding For A Prevailing Party Was Entitled To A Fee Award Under CCP § 1218

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Fees as Damages

Fee Request Was Reduced, But Lower Court Found That Prevailing Party’s Subsequent Counsel’s Withdrawal Of A Prior Timely Fee Motion Allowed Former Counsel A Reason To Still Have It Heard In The Lower Court’s Discretion.                In Vista Land, LLC v. Robinson, Case No. B331975 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2025) (unpublished), defendants were

Arbitration, Sanctions: $183,304 In Sanctions Relating To Abandoned Arbitration Proceeding Awarded Against Employer Not Timely Paying Arbitration Expenses Under CCP § 1281.98(c)(1)

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions Are Awardable Where Fees Were Expended In Terminated Arbitration Proceedings.                In an area where there has been a lot of litigation, an employer faces litigating in court and paying sanctions to an employee in a situation where employee wants to arbitrate but employer fails to adhere to the payment deadlines in CCP §§

Section 998: Defendants Held Jointly And Severally Liable Did Not Beat Jury Verdict So As To Escape Costs Under Section 998

Cases: Section 998

No Non-Economic Damages Were Sought In Vehicle Property Injury Case, So Appealing Defendants Did Not Fashion A Successful 998 Offer.                Defendants were held jointly and severally liable in a vehicle property injury matter where plaintiff recovered a $204,528 jury verdict damages award as against them and others, based on damages to plaintiff’s truck and

Family Law: Denial Of Needs-Based Family Code Section 2030 Fees Reversed Because Lower Court Made No Findings Of Ability To Pay

Cases: Family Law

Consideration Of Equitable Factors Other Than Disparity and Ability To Pay Are Not Allowable Under Section 2030.                In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B340089 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 23, 2025) (unpublished), the lower court denied a Family Code section 2030 needs-based fee request by ex-wife in connection with child support modification

Fee Clause Interpretation: 4/3 DCA Affirms Substantial Fees Award Against Tenants In A Dana Point Harbor Slip Dispute

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Lower Court Cut Fees Request In Half, Which Was Erroneous, But Respondent’s Failure To Appeal Means The Reduction Did Not Aggrieve Appellants, the Tenants.                In Papageorges v. Dana Point Harbor Partners, Case No. G063688 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 20, 2025) (unpublished), the upshot from this opinion is that a respondent may want to

Costs: Dismissal Of Unlawful Detainer Defendant Gave Entitlement To Recovery Of Mandatory Routine Costs

Cases: Costs

Lower Court’s Determination That No Party Prevailed For Routine Cost Purpose Was Reversed With Directions To Award Costs To Dismissed Defendant.                In Shapell SoCal Rental Properties, LLC v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., Case No. G063663 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), tenant and landlord were involved in an Orange County unlawful detainer action

Section 998: Cross-Defendant’s 998 Offer Was Invalid, So It Did Not Dilute Recovery By Defendant/Cross-Complainant On Other Defense Claims

Cases: Section 998

Be Careful What You Put In Your 998 Offers, Don’t Overreach.                In T&R Painting and Drywall v. Town Building & Development, Case Nos. B330375 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), there was a convoluted dispute between a plaintiff subcontractor and a defendant general contractor, with general contractor bringing a cross-complaint

SLAPP: $14,037.27 SLAPP Fees/Costs Award Reversed And Remanded Because Appellate Court Found One Claim Should Not Be Granted

Cases: SLAPP

Trial And Appellate Fees/Costs Remanded To The Trial Court, Given Cross-Defendants’ Partial Success.                Wald v. Martin, Case Nos. B335960 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 16, 2025) (unpublished), illustrates how a partial reversal of a SLAPP grant generally leads to a reversal and remand of the subsequent fees/costs award to a prevailing defendant

Scroll to Top