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.
-
Allocation, Costs, Employment: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying Costs To The Winning Defendant On Non-FEHA Claim
Defense Should Have Apportioned In Its Moving Papers Or Asked For Supplemental Briefing Opportunity. In Janisse v. MLK-L.A. Healthcare Corp., Case No. B326593 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 3, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff brought FEHA/whistleblower, and non-FEHA claims against defendant. Plaintiff lost all of her claims after a jury trial. The defense…
-
Civil Rights: Mentally Disabled Prevailing Party Entitled To Fees Where Confidential Records Disclosed Negligently Or Willfully And Knowingly To Others Not Entitled To See Them
Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5330(d) So Provides. In Doe v. County of Orange, Case No. G064562 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 2, 2025) (published), the appellate court reminds us that Welfare & Institutions Code section 5330(d) allows a mentally disordered person to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, on a mandatory basis, by a…
-
Probate: Lower Court’s Entertainment Of Nonwritten Objections, After Earlier Indicating Oral Objections Would Not Be Allowed, Required Reversal Of Reduced Fee Award To Conservator
Due Process Required The Reversal. In Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Martha A., Case No. G063437 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2025) (unpublished), a conservator was awarded attorney’s fees of $94,955, a reduction from the request of $186,990 after the lower court entertained and granted certain oral objections by one of…
-
Section 1717: City Of Oakland Suffers A Fees/Costs Award Of Almost $6.9 Million In Total After Losing Ground Lease Termination Case Against Plaintiffs
Case Demonstrates How Fee-Shifting Is A Major Consideration In Modern Day Litigation. City of Oakland, in Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 519, Case Nos. A169585 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 27, 2025), pet’n for review filed 8-6-2025, lost a ground lease termination case to…
-
Arbitration, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Did Not Err By Reducing $17,653.50 Fee Request For CCP § 1281.98 Sanctions Down To A $2,060 Fee Award
Fee Entitlement Still Allowed A Determination Of Reasonableness, With Record Supporting An Excessive Fee Request. Reasonableness of a fee request is simply an important issue all clients and attorneys must consider when a fee/sanctions petition is filed. Where an excessive, unreasonable request is made, the lower court has a range of options, from denying…
-
Appealability: Defendant Hit With Wage/Hour Attorney’s Fees Could Not Challenge The Award Because It Failed To Independently Appeal The Postjudgment Fee Order
The Notice Of Appeal Only Attached The Merits Judgment, Which No Mention Of Fees. Myers v. Quality Care Home, Inc., Case No. C101659 (3d Dist. Aug. 20, 2025) (unpublished) involved a situation we have seen many times. Defendant was hit with a $78,000 wage/hour fee award after a more minor unpaid wage judgment was…
-
Arbitration: Where Prevailing Party In An Arbitration Failed To Request Attorney’s Fees In An Answering Statement And The Arbitrator Refused to Award Fees, Superior Court Had No Jurisdiction To Award Fees . . .
Only The Arbitrator Had The Authority. Claimant prevailed in an arbitration, but it failed to request attorney’s fees as required by AAA rules in claimant’s answering statement. The arbitrator refused to award fees based on this omission. Claimant then sought fees from the lower court when petitioning to confirm the award. The damages award…
-
Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Retirement Community Could Account For Class Action Defense Costs For Litigation In Their Annual Budgets
Consumer Legal Remedies/Elder Abuse Statutes Did Not Preempt, Although Defense Costs Had To Be Reviewed On Remand To Make Sure They Were Not Inflated In Nature. In Johnson v. Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC LLC, Case No. A170383 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 19, 2025) (published), the question was whether a continuing care retirement community…
-
Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Because Plaintiff Prevailed Through Mandate Challenging A Conditional Permit Revocation, It Correctly Was Denied Fees Under A Local Public Nuisance Ordinance With Reciprocal Fee-Shifting Provisions
No Fee Entitlement Was Shown. Plaintiff obtained mandate relief against a municipality in a permit revocation dispute, subsequently moving for attorney’s fees under reciprocal fee-shifting provisions of the Perris Municipal Code relating to public nuisances. The lower court denied Plaintiff’s motion for fees under the municipal code. That determination was affirmed on appeal in…
-
Section 998: 4/1 DCA, Relying On Its Zavala Decision Under Review By The California Supreme Court, Reverses A Lower Court’s Failure To Independently Evaluate Whether A Lump-Sum § 998 Offer Served To Shift Costs And Fees In A Lemon Law Suit
The Result Was That Car Manufacturer’s Request For Costs Had To Be Revisited And The $200,000 Fee Award To Plaintiffs Had To Be Reevaluated. In Zavala v. Hyundai Motor America, 107 Cal.App.5th 458, 463 (2024), rev. granted, No. S289000 (March 19, 2025), the 4/1 DCA concluded that CCP § 998 offers may include simultaneous,…