Mike, Shanna, and Marc’s Top Twenty-Two Fee Decisions for 2025– Part 1 of 2.
As is our tradition during the Holidays, we post on the top twenty-two fees/costs decisions from 2025, keeping in mind that this is a subjective ranking and does not take away from other published decisions of interest to litigants, practitioners, and the public in the areas of attorney’s fees and costs. Here is Part 1 of 2.
22. Construction/Civil Rights. Johnson v. Rubylin, Inc., Case No. H053076 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2025) [published]: The attorney-client privilege does not support a disability plaintiff in a construction access case from objecting to disclose claimed attorney’s fees and claims for purposes of responding to a defense request for a stay and an early evaluation conference to show that the case can be resolved at an early stage for Unruh Act claims. Plaintiff opted to dismiss the case with prejudice based on his privilege objection, a result affirmed on appeal.
21. Appeal Sanctions—AI Hallucinations. Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 Cal.App.5th 426 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 12, 2025): Appellant’s attorney sanctioned by the appellate court for filing briefs that contained numerous fabricated legal citations generated by artificial intelligence (AI). Subsequent appellate decisions have followed the reasoning in Noland. (E.g., People v. Alvarez, 114 Cal.App.5th 1115, 1118-1119 (2025) [4th Dist., Div. 1]; Schlichter v. Kennedy, 2025 WL 3204738 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 17, 2025); Shayan v. Shakib, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 782 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 1, 2025).)
20. Section 998. Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, S287946. (2d Dist., Div. 2 B327745; 105 Cal.App.5th 913; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 19STCV11540): Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case is under review by the California Supreme Court and presents the following issue: Is a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 that contains two options inherently invalid, presumptively invalid, or invalid or partially or entirely valid depending on a separate and independent evaluation of each option?
19. Discovery/Substantiation of Fees. Baer v. Tedder, 115 Cal.App.5th 1139 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2025): Appellate fees incurred in upholding inspection demand discovery sanctions were recoverable; Real Rate Report survey needs to be used appropriately, not using general commercial attorney hourly rates for litigation work and not using L.A. rates to gauge reasonableness of Orange County venue-based attorney rates—but attorney declarations on reasonableness of rates saved the day.
18. Mediation Conditions Precedent Clause—Residential Purchase Agreement. Evleshin v. Meyer, 115 Cal.App.5th 1021 (6th Dist. Nov. 6, 2025): A prevailing party’s reversal of an initial decision refusing to mediate and offering to do so before suit is filed by the opposite side may satisfy the mediation requirement by the party seeking fees.
17. Lodestar/Multipliers/Reasonableness of Fees. Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 114 Cal.App.5th 537(2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 17, 2025): The defense litigating unsuccessful motions, being unsuccessful in a prior appeal, and rejecting a 998 pretrial offer in a difficult case–which was way lower than the eventual jury verdict–can expect a large attorney’s fees request—with $4.9 million fees awarded in this matter. This case shows how a good fee petition is presented and documented as far as substantiation, hourly rate support, and description of the litigation history. If the trial court asks for supplemental briefing and expert testimony, this case shows that you should provide the information or risk having your expert deemed not as credible as the opposing expert. The case also holds that smaller firms are entitled to large firm rates if the matter is difficult. Ketchum case (our Leading Case No. 8, under a drop down from “Legal” at the top of our home page) does not preclude a multiplier in a discretionary fee-shifting case. Employment preclusion and experience/skill of counsel can support a multiplier. If the defense is challenging reasonableness, it should indicate what it expended in fees to make a credible challenge to the reasonableness of the request.
16. Costs/Contractual Fees and Costs Cap. Gogal v. Deng, 112 Cal.App.5th 1193(4th Dist., Div. 1 July 22, 2025): In a residential landlord-tenant dispute, $1,000 lease contractual cap on recoverability of costs and attorney’s fees enforced against prevailing tenant; no public policy implications involved. The California Supreme Court has granted review, ordering that briefing address these two issues: (1) Are parties to a pre-litigation contract prohibited from waiving their rights to recover costs as prevailing parties in litigation? (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1032; Civ. Code, § 3513); and (2) Does Civil Code section 1953 void an agreement by a lessee to waive or modify the right to recover such costs?
15. Employment/Whistleblower. Lampkin v. County of Los Angeles, 112 Cal.App.5th 920(2d Dist., Div. 4 July 8, 2025): $400,000 fee award to plaintiff in a “mixed-motive” whistleblower case under Labor Code section 1102.6 was reversed as a matter of law because, although plaintiff proved the elements of his case, plaintiff obtained no relief because defendant employer proved a “same-decision defense” resulting in a zero award. The appellate court refused to extend the reasoning of Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, a FEHA case, to the whistleblower fee-shifting statute.
14. Civility/Ethics. Prato v. Giola, 112 Cal.App.5th 651(4th Dist., Div. 3 June 27, 2025): $70,000-plus fee award in favor of the defense reversed and remanded because defense counsel knowing about plaintiff’s counsel’s ineligibility to practice never notified her, resulting in a dismissal of her case and the fee award. Defense counsel should have given plaintiff notice or requested the lower court to allow notice to be given about the ineligibility, with the appellate panel strongly suggesting the fee award was inequitable and should not be entered against the unknowing plaintiff.
13. Lodestar/Reasonableness of Fees. Cash v. County of Los Angeles, 111 Cal.App.5th 741(2d Dist., Div. 5 May 30, 2025) [2-1 opinion]: Lower court’s 30% across-the-board reduction for padding, duplication, and excessive fee work affirmed with respect to fashioning fee award, disagreeing with the approach by other intermediate appellate courts to import federal case reasoning which called for heightened scrutiny; the opposite conclusion would interfere with the principle that the trial judge can rely on his/her own experience in making a fee award. The dissenting justice believed heightened scrutiny was appropriate based on the circumstances. California Supreme Court review was granted in this case on August 20, 2025, with the issues being: (1) Did the trial court’s across-the-board reduction of the fees requested by plaintiff’s counsel trigger heightened scrutiny of its fee order on appeal? (2) Did the trial court commit reversible error in reducing the fee request on an across-the-board basis? Also, the opinion can be cited for its persuasive value and to show a conflict exists among the DCAs while the matter is under review.
12. Special Fee Shifting Statute—LLCs. Perry v. Stuart, 111 Cal.App.5th 472 (6th Dist. May 27, 2025): Discretionary fee award under Corp. Code § 17704.10(g) [LLC inspection demand fee-shifting section] reversed and remanded where appellate court needed more reasoning for the trial court’s award of $65,000 for partially prevailing plaintiffs making a $181,327.50 fee request.