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.
-
Section 998: California Supreme Court Rules That Section 998 Offers With Alternative Options Are Valid, If Properly Structured With Certainty For The Options
It Disagrees With The Court of Appeal’s Categorical Invalidity Argument. In Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. S287946 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 6, 2026) (published), the California Supreme Court endorsed CCP section 998 offers containing alternative options for acceptance, as long as clear in nature. Here is the heart of the…
-
Family Law: $159,669.44 Award In Needs-Based Fees To Ex-Wife Was Sustained On Appeal
Record Showed A Disparity In Financial Conditions, With Ex-Wife’s Counsel’s Showing For The Fees Being Sufficient In Nature. In Marriage of Bridges, Case No. F088836 et al. (5th Dist. Aug. 5, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife was awarded Family Code section 2030/2032 needs-based fees of $159,669.44 where the record showed husband had liquidated substantial assets for material…
-
Appeal Sanctions, Discovery, Sanctions: $7,870.41 Discovery Sanctions Affirmed On Appeal For Failure To Produce Metadata For A Crucial Meeting Summary Which Was The Bases For An Employee’s Termination
Defense’s Privilege Objections Found Unpersuasive, But A Request for Appeal Sanctions Was Denied. The lower court in Romero v. Gopher Media LLC, Case No. D086508 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 5, 2026) (unpublished) imposed $7,870.41 in discovery sanctions on defendants for failing to produce a crucial meeting summary used to justify plaintiff’s employment termination in…
-
Appeal Sanctions, Ethics: Appellants’ Counsel’s Disparaging The Trial Judge Of Being Biased, Without Any Support, Drew A $1,000 Contempt Sanction
Plus The Opinion Had To Be Reported To The State Bar. A Company Hungary KFT v. Bespalov, Case No. B336640a (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 4, 2026) (published) is an opinion where an appellants’ counsel was assessed with a $1,000 contempt sanction for disparaging a trial judge, without evidence, in appellate briefing. The panel found…
-
Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories: $1,062,813.20 Fee Award In Favor Of Corporate Executives And Directors Is Affirmed On Appeal In Contentious Battle Involving Contracts Between Plaintiff And Banc Of California Executives/Directors
Fee Clause Broadly Encompassed Any Dispute Resulting In Litigation, Executives/Directors Were Fee Clause Nonsignatories Entitled To Fees, And No Apportionment Was Needed Given Breadth Of Fees Clause. In Sugarman v. Benett, Case No. B338610 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 3, 2026) (unpublished), there was contentious, aggressive litigation involving plaintiff and his trust (plaintiff being a…
-
SLAPP: $7,410 Fee And $956.79 Cost Awards Against Non-Prevailing Plaintiff, Whose Whole Complaint Was SLAPPed, Holds Up On Appeal
Lower Court Substantially Cut Defense Counsel’s Claimed Hours And Cut The Hourly Rate Request. In Mirjafarifiroozabadi v. Man, Case No. G066134 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 31, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff’s entire Complaint was dismissed after the defense won a SLAPP motion. Defense counsel then moved for attorney’s fees, claiming 34.10 hours of work at a…
-
Private Attorney General: Coalition Of City Employees/Union Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees, Not Disclosed In Amount, Based On A Failure To Meaningfully Bargain Over A Labor Dispute—You Labor Attorneys Know The Importance Of This
Private Attorney General Elements Were Met, Under An Abuse Of Discretion Standard. Although we do not know the amount of the fees awarded in City of Los Angeles v. IBEW, Local 18, Case No. B336981 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 30, 2026) (unpublished), we can report that a CCP § 1021.5 private attorney…
-
Landlord/Tenant, Mediation, Section 1717: $69,560 Fee Award To Tenant For Defensing An Unlawful Detainer Suit Based On A Defective Notice To Cure Or Quit Is Affirmed
Mediation Noncompliance And Fee Cap Arguments Are Rejected On Appeal. In Karrass v. Carey, Case No. B344608 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 30, 2026) (unpublished), tenant defensed a landlord in an unlawful detainer action based on an alleged notice to cure violations or quit, a notice found deficient. Later, the trial court awarded tenant prevailing…
-
Costs: Awardable Appeal Costs Are Specifically Listed, Not Incorporating A More General “Necessary/Reasonable To The Conduct Of The Litigation” Test Applicable To Trial Discretionary Routine Cost Awards
CRC, Rule 8.278 Is More Constricted In Scope Gigena v. Finch, Case No. C104947 (2d Dist. July 30, 2026) (unpublished) involved an appeal of appellate routine costs under CRC 8.278, with an in pro per litigant’s appellate costs request being significantly reduced at the trial court level. The Third District affirmed, but in doing so…
-
Intellectual Property: Over $600,000 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Defendant In A Lanham Act Case Is Affirmed On Appeal
Plaintiff Won Nominal Damages Of $1 And Disgorgement, Although The Disgorgement Award Was Reversed As A Matter Of Law By The Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit in Multiple Energy Technologies, LLC v. Casden, No. 24-4691 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026) (published) considered over a $600,000 attorney’s fees award against a defendant in a Lanham Act…