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.
-
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 In Marriage of Tran and Ha, Case No. G064047 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife’s requests for two sets of fees (which were denied) did not result in a relook on appeal, but her request for non-appellate, needs-based fees had…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…
-
Section 1717: Where Plaintiff Pled Claims Based On Operating Agreements With Contractual Fee Clauses, It Did Not Matter If They Had Tort Origins
The Dismissed Claims Were “On The Contract” Under Civil Code Section 1717. We think that sometimes litigants and practitioners do not appreciate that Civil Code section 1717’s definition of “on the contract” is liberally construed, meaning that even tort claims based on contractual documents frequently will give rise to fee exposure. JAJ3, LLC v. Bren,…
-
SLAPP: Appellant’s Reversal Of Entire SLAPP Grant Meant That Attorney’s Fees Award Had To Be Revisited Against Previously Prevailing Defendants
Unsuccessful Claim Work, Impact On Future Litigation, Issues Remaining To Be Litigated, And Whether Defendants Remain The Prevailing Parties Based On SLAPP Denial As To Two Alleged Defamatory Communications Remaining. In White v. Gabriel, Case No. H052203 (6th Dist. Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) (White II), plaintiff sued several defendants for defamation, with two defendants entirely…
-
Allocation, Fees On Fees, Homeowner Associations, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Defendant Homeowners Prevailing On Deck/Gazebo Construction Dispute Were Properly Awarded A Total Of $615,118.37 In Fees And Costs
CC&R And Nuisance Claims Were Intertwined, So No Apportionment Required, And Fee Excessive Claims Were Not Supported By Record Citations. Finley v. Gantz, Case No. D084145 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) reinforces a message we have refrained in the past: homeowner disputes can be expensive for the losing side, which will allow…
-
Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Where A Broad Contractual Fees Clause Governed Any Dispute Between The Parties, Fees For Prevailing On A Successful Forum Selection Motion in California Gave Rise To Fees Under CCP §§ 1021, 1032, And 1033.5
Section 1717 Did Not Give Rise To Fees Based Upon DisputeSuite Opinion. This opinion highlights the importance of wording in a fees clause. Broader language, such as “the prevailing party in any dispute or proceeding arising hereunder shall be entitled to recovery its costs and expenses incurred therein (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses),” can…