Explore thousands of curated case law summaries, expert analyses, and legal insights tailored for California attorneys. Our Articles page is your gateway to over 10,000 cited cases and abstracts — organized for fast reference and strategic research.
-
SLAPP: Where SLAPP Defendant Groups Were Granted Reduced Fees, Plaintiff’s Appeal About The Lower Amounts Awarded Did Not Resonate On Appeal
Lower Court Even Applied Discounted Hourly Rates Stipulated To By Defense Counsel–No Abuse of Discretion Demonstrated. In Qassimyar v. Ortega, Case No. D084317 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 19, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion brought by two sets of defendants. The merits determination was affirmed on appeal, but plaintiff also contested mandatory fee…
-
Allocation, Probate, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where There Were Dueling Probate Petitions For Financial Elder Abuse Claims, The Prevailing Petitioner—Even Though A Cross-Respondent Defensing The Unsuccessful Elder Abuse Petition—Was Entitled To Intertwined Fee Work For Prevailing As A Petitioner And Defending As A Cross-Respondent
Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in…
-
Family Law, Sanctions: Family Law Section 271 Sanctions Of $35,000 Reversed Against Ex-Husband Because . . . .
His Failure To Stipulate Did Not Show Bad Faith Under The Circumstances And The Awarded Sanctions Were Not Tethered To Any Specific Conduct. Family Code section 271 does allow for monetary “sanctions” against a family law litigant who tries to not foster resolution and makes the proceedings more expensive. However, they are not a general…
-
Costs, Section 998: Because Defense 998 Offer Was Valid And It Defensed The Plaintiff, Routine Costs Were Allowable But Had To Be Further Reduced
After The Lower Court Erred In Not Taxing Some Routine Costs, Especially Some Conceded By The Defense As Being Erroneous, The Costs Judgment Had To Be Modified On Appeal. Reyes-Gonzalez v. Color Marble, Inc., Case No. B350612 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished) involved a case where plaintiff was “defensed” by the defendant,…
-
Deadlines, Family Law: Appellate Fees Properly Denied As Untimely And Marital Settlement Agreement Fees Denied To Ex-Wife, But Needs-Based Fees Had To Be Revisited
Lack Of Family Code Section 2030 Findings Constituted An Abuse Of Discretion. In Marriage of Tran and Ha, Case No. G064047 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife’s requests for two sets of fees (which were denied) did not result in a relook on appeal, but her request for non-appellate, needs-based fees had…
-
Deadlines: Motion For Attorney’s Fees Was Untimely Because It Was Served More Than 180 Days After A Dismissal
4/1 DCA Clarifies Rules For Fee Motion Filing/Service Deadline Where There Is A Dismissal Based On An Unconditional Settlement In Tandem With A Court Notice. Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC, Case No. D084360 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 17, 2026) (published) is an opinion which is must reading for litigants and practitioners with respect to…
-
Arbitration: Another Post-Hohenshelt Reversal For The Defense Arguably Not Paying One Invoice On Time
Although Remanded, Facts Suggested A Possible Delay Because Of A Calamity Evacuation By Defense Counsel. As we have said before, the CCP § 1281.98 defense missed payment deadline for employer/employee cases have resulted in many reversals and remands. That also occurred in Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Case No. A168297 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Feb.…
-
SLAPP: Prevailing Defendants Properly Awarded SLAPP Fees Of $53,000, About Half Of The Requested Amount
Procedural And Excessiveness Challenges Not Successful On Appeal. Litigants and practitioners are reminded that mandatory SLAPP fees, if granted to a true prevailing defendant, are hard to overturn as to amount where the record is clear that the defendants were true prevailing parties in entirety. That was the case in Homeport Insurance v. Weltin, et…
-
Discovery: $20,000 Discovery Sanctions For Litigant’s Failure To Meet And Confer On Third Party Subpoena Is Affirmed On Appeal
Substantial Evidence Supported The Result, Not To Mention A $35,000 Reduction In Requested Fees Showed No Arbitrary Result. Discovery disputes are contentious, and lower courts have a hard time on them based on the numerous issues that may be involved. However, they have no problems sanctioning for a failure to meet and confer. And that…
-
Deadlines: Failure Of Losing Plaintiff to File A Motion To Tax Trial And Appellate Costs Waived Challenges To Routine Costs Entered By The Clerk
Lower Court Implicitly Extended The Deadline When Plaintiff’s Attorney Indicated Not Receiving The Trial Cost Memorandum (Which Was Cured), With Plaintiff Also Not Showing The Allowed Costs Were Improper—No Reversible Error. In Kirk v. Quirino, Case No. B340782 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 11, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a car accident case, with the lower…