Mike, Shanna, and Marc’s Top Twenty-Two Fee Decisions for 2025—Part 2 of 2.
Here is Part 2 of our Top 22 Fee/Costs Decisions for 2025. Happy Holidays to our readers!
11. Section 998. Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, 17 Cal.5th 592(Cal. Supreme Court Mar. 20, 2025): CCP § 998 offers do apply to pretrial settlements, rather than just to judgments or to arbitration awards, for purposes of cost-shifting, although the parties can allocate things differently under their settlement/compromise agreements.
10. SLAPP. Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 109 Cal.App.5th 635(1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 12, 2025): Seven defendants properly awarded $683,417.50 in SLAPP prevailing party fees and costs because prior appeal and sealing of records did lead to the granting of the SLAPP motions. (Note: Defendants had requested $1.9 million in fees, but were awarded the reduced amount.)
9. Civil Rights/Prevailing Party. Lackey v. Stinnie (U.S. Feb. 25, 2025) 604 U.S. 192, 145 S. Ct. 659: Plaintiff obtaining a preliminary injunction where the case happened to be mooted by subsequent legislative action was not a “prevailing party” under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
8. Fee Clause Interpretation. Pulse Technology Consulting Group, Inc. v. Skowron & Bunning, LLP, 108 Cal.App.5th 824 (3d Dist. Feb. 13, 2025) [partially published; fee discussion published]: A contractual fees clause allowing for recovery of third-party collection expenses included attorney’s fees recovery; amount of fees properly calculated by lower court under a lodestar approach, cross-checked by a percentage-of-recovery approach reflecting success rates on plaintiff’s case and on the defense counterclaims case.
7. Special Fee Shifting Statute—Penal Code § 502(c). Hay v. Marinkovich, 108 Cal.App.5th 707 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2025): A prevailing defendant in a Penal Code section 502 case (section 502 prohibits an unauthorized use of any computer system for an improper purpose) is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 502(c) but only where plaintiff’s claim was objectively without foundation when brought or plaintiff continued to litigate the case after it became so. Because plaintiff’s case was not frivolous, the lower court exercised its discretion correctly by denying the defendant’s fee request.
6. Deadlines. Wash v. Banda-Wash, 109 Cal.App.5th 203 (5th Dist. Feb. 3, 2025): A litigant prevailing on appeal has 40 days after issuance of the remittitur to file a fee motion under CRC 8.278(c)(1), a firm deadline not extended by the manner of service of the remittitur.
5. Judgment Enforcement/Section 998: Elmi v. Related Management Company, L.P., 108 Cal.App.5th 683 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 6, 2025): A litigant’s efforts to enforce a SLAPP judgment is governed by the CCP § 685.040 post-judgment enforcement fee statute, not CCP § 998. Fee denial was reversed and remanded.
4. Consumer Statutes. Martinez v. Sai Long Beach B, Inc., 108 Cal.App.5th 367 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2025) [partially published; fee discussion published]: Prevailing lemon law defendant, where a contractual fees clause did authorize recovery, was not entitled to fee recovery because the Moss-Magnuson Act, the Song-Beverly Act, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act did not allow recovery for a prevailing defendant/non-consumer/seller. A fee award of about $110,000 was reversed as a matter of law.
3. Deadlines. Mendoza v. City of Duarte, 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 24 (L.A. Superior Appellate Div. Dec. 30, 2024): Superior court’s Notice of Decision sustaining a de novo administrative appeal in a limited superior court case triggered a 30-day deadline for City to file a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, a deadline which City did not comply with.
2. Fee Reasonableness. Pollock v. Kelso, 107 Cal.App.5th 1190 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 8, 2025): $493,577.10 attorney’s fees award to a FEHA plaintiff was affirmed (inclusive of a 1.8 positive multiplier); appellate court reiterated that lower courts are in unique positions to determine which side prevailed and the reasonable amount of a fee award. It also indicated that a defense challenging a fee award may face an uphill battle unless it reveals what was spent on a case, although the case law in California is not uniform on the probative nature of an opposing side’s fees—although this case certainly says it is. (Pollock was followed in Pelayo v. Utility Partners of America, LLC (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 7, 2025) Case No. A171211 (unpublished) [appellate court found it probative that defendant challenging a fees award did not mention what its attorneys expended on a case when it came to gauging the reasonableness of the awarded fees].)
1. Employment. Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp., 108 Cal.App.5th 211 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 21, 2025): Employees losing a Labor Commissioner Berman hearing can still seek attorney’s fees and costs under Labor Code section 1194 and 226 after winning a de novo hearing before the superior court. Even though Labor Code section 98.2(c) limits recovery of a fee award only against an unsuccessful de novo appellant (not speaking to what happens as to a successful de novo appellant), nothing indicated it was exclusive such that the general Labor Code provisions allow for fee and cost recovery, with the 4/1 DCA following Eicher v. Advanced Business Integrators, Inc.,151 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1379 (2007). which found that the Labor Code section 98.2(c) was not exclusive.