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, Multipliers, Private Attorney General: Close To $3 Million In Attorney’s Fees Award To Plaintiffs/Respondents Against CalPERS Is Affirmed On Appeal
Significant Benefit Was Conferred, And No Need For Apportionment Where Successful And Unsuccessful Claims Were Inextricably Intertwined. In Liu v. Bd. of Adm. of CalPERS, Case No. B341221 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 29, 2026) (unpublished), lead plaintiff/respondent Liu on appeal, a class member of CalPERS, filed a CCP § 1094.5 writ mandate petition, on…
-
Requests For Admission: 4/3 DCA Publishes Cost-Of-Proof Order, Affirmed, To Emphasize RFAs Must Be Admitted Even Partially And Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Must Be Precisely Delineated For The Work Incurred To Prove The Denied RFAs
In The End, $1,960 In Cost-Of-Proof Fees Were Awarded (Out Of A Requested $81,875) And $25,741.20 Routine Costs Requests Denied In Entirety. We do have a category entitled “Requests for Admissions.” This next opinion reinforces posts and lessons we have made in the past on this topic with respect to costs-of-proof sanctions relating to RFAs.…
-
Deadlines, Family Law: Deadline To File Fee Motion For Fees Under Family Code Section 6344 Is Governed By CRC 3.1702 Deadline Rules
No Exception Applied To Family Matters, With The Family Law Court Not Expressly Reserving The Matter For Later Junctures. In In re Marriage of A.O. and Vologodskaya, Case No. A176388 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 28, 2026) (published), the issue on appeal was whether CRC 3.1702 deadlines applied to a prevailing party as far as…
-
Deadlines, Private Attorney General: 1/4 DCA Holds That Fee Motion Is Timely Filed If Filed 2 Court Days After Electronic Service Of Notice Of Entry of Judgment
Although A Validation Action Is Involved, The Broader Reasoning Gives Some Extension Days Past A Jurisdictional Appeal Deadline For Civil Appeals In General. Alameda County Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. City of Oakland, Case No. A172609 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 28, 2026) (partially published, on timeliness of fee motion) involved a real party in interest…
-
Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Respondent In Case Where CHROA Petition Was Dismissed And Where There Was Informal Agreement On Future Behavior, Had His Fee/Costs Denial Affirmed On Appeal
$9,193.30 Fee/Costs Award Denied, With Appellate Court Determining Respondent Was Not The Prevailing Party, Was No Abuse Of Discretion. CCP § 527.6(a) does allow a prevailing party in a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) proceeding to obtain discretionary fees and costs from a trial judge. The issue usually boils down to who is a “prevailing…
-
Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees, Trade Secrets: $11.4 Million In Fees/Costs Awarded To Plaintiff Prevailing In A Trade Secret Case In Federal District Court
Sanctions Were Imposed On Defense Counsel After Jury’s Compensatory and Punitive Damages Verdicts, A Preliminary Injunction Was Entered, And District Judge Made Salient Observations About Results In One Litigation As Not Defining A Person. We post on Mallet & Co., Inc. v. Lacayo et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01409-CB (W.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2025 Memorandum order),…
-
Allocation, SLAPP: Another Case Determines That Substantial Success Justifies SLAPP Fee Recovery, Where Intertwined Time Did Not Need To Be Allocated
However, Reduced Fee Award Was Issued, And It Was Affirmed On Appeal. Some of our posts do intersect, so this one is somewhat of an adjunct to our post relating to our discussion of the Advanced Orthopedic unpublished opinion, an October 26, 2026 decision. In Seales-Perkins v. Los Rios Community College Dist., Case No. C104599…
-
Allocation, SLAPP: Because Impact Of SLAPP Motion Is Paramount, No Need To Apportion Work On Unchallenged Claims
However, $155,255.98 Reduced Fee Award, Out Of A Requested $210,227.48, Is Affirmed On Appeal. In Advanced Orthopedic Center, Inc. v. Regal Medical Group, Inc., Case No. B344584 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 26, 2026) (unpublished), defendants bringing a SLAPP motion—on remand from a prior appellate opinion–successfully had stricken allegations of an amended complaint alleging bribery…
-
Private Attorney General: Reduced Fee Award To Prevailing Party, Based On Limited Success And Overlitigation, Was Affirmed On Appeal
Prevailing Party Only Obtained Petition Relief Based On General Prayer Clause, With Lower Court Granting A Remedy To The Prevailing Party–$53,679.63 Out Of $322,798.50 Fee Request Was The Ultimate Award. Prevailing party in Seligman Liberty Station, LLC v. City of San Diego, Case No. C101420 (3d Dist. Oct. 23, 2026; posted Oct. 26, 2026) (unpublished)…
-
Choice Of Law, Insurance: Appellate Court Sustains A Lower Court’s Ruling That An Insured’s Invocation Of Delaware’s Bad Faith Litigation Expense Exception For Fee Recovery Was Procedural So That California Did Not Have To Apply It
Case Has An Interesting Discussion, Under A Choice Of Law Analysis, Whether A Fee Claim Is Procedural Or Substantive, And It Was Procedural In The Case Before It. Wing Inflatables v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s, Case No. A172050 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 23, 2026) (unpublished) was a situation where an insured won major jury…