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.
-
In The News, Sanctions: Prominent L.A. Firm Sanctioned Almost $3 Million For Not Being Candid With A District Judge Or Opponent On Expert Discovery Issues
Some Of The Sanctions Were Apportioned Separately Against Supervising Partners And Mid-Level Associates, With Some Of The Attorneys Having To Submit To Ethical Curriculum Requirements—In A Word, Partners, Prudently Supervise Your Associates! Although we do not want to mention names (because it out there in the public media anyway), District Judge Chen of the Northern…
-
Appeal Sanctions: 2/6 DCA Awards $12,590.20 To Respondent And $8,500 To Court Clerk For Prosecuting A Frivolous Appeal
Appeal Of $72,476.87 Sanctions Award Against Ex-Husband Deemed Frivolous. Just to give you a sense of the dollar amounts of appellate sanctions imposed in one Division of the Second District, the Ventura Court of Appeal, in Marriage of Walther, Case No. B340131 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 20, 2026) (unpublished), found ex-husband’s appeal of a…
-
SLAPP: Landlord, Successfully Defending Against A SLAPP Motion Against Tenants, Was Not Entitled To SLAPP Fees Awarded By The Lower Court
Reason Was That The Grant Of Fees/Costs Was Summarily Made, Not Meeting Specificity Requirements Under CCP § 128.5. Although we have not looked at the underlying papers in this matter, we can say that Lichtenstein v. Stalley, Case No. B347325 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 19, 2026) (unpublished) reminds that a plaintiff defeating a SLAPP…
-
Family Law: Litigant Failing To Show She Was A Putative Domestic Partner Was Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Award
Marriage of Aviles Opinion Supported The Result. Marriage of Chevallier & Rodriguez, Case No. H052644 et al. (6th Dist. May 15, 2026) (unpublished) determined a litigant, who together with her boyfriend did not file Declarations of Domestic Partnership with California’s Secretary of State, was properly denied an attorney’s fees award by the lower court because…
-
Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Attorney’s Fees Award In Favor Of Non-Signatory, Alter Ego Targets Was Reversed And Remanded
On Remand, Only Contract Claim Work Could be Awarded, Not On Non-Contract Claims—Lower Court Vested With Discretion To Allocate On Remand. McCain v. Edwards, Case No. C101256 (3d Dist. May 14, 2026) (unpublished) is a very contested case where, eventually, some non-signatory, alter ego targets evaded exposure where the contract between the predicate signatory and…
-
Discovery, Sanctions: Although Spoliation Issues Sanction Order Was Reversed, $16,000 Discovery Monetary Sanctions Were Proper Based On Motion Compelling Further Discovery Responses
Although Spoliation and Motion To Compel Issues Were Inextricably Intertwined, Motion To Compel Ruling Supported The Sanctions Award Where The Claimed Expenses Were Not Allocated To Any Specific Relief. In Glickman v. Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, Case No. G065111 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 13, 2026) (unpublished), our local Santa Ana Court, in a 3-0…
-
Section 1717: Court Of Appeal Affirms Fee Award, Confirming That A Notice Of Motion For An Attorney’s Fee Request Does Not Have To Specifically Recite The Contract Which Was A Predicate For The Fee Motion
General Reference To The Parties’ Contract Sufficed. Yellow Dog Holdings, LLC v. Regions Bank, Case No. G064613 (4th Dist., Div. 3) (May 12, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Sanchez, did deal with a procedural issue we have seen frequently argued. The notice of motion for attorney’s fees referenced the parties’ contract, but it did not…
-
Allocation, Construction: Where Contractor Did Not Prevail On Contractual Provisions But Did Prevail On Prompt Payment Statutes, Lower Court’s Decision To Award Only A Quarter Of Requested Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion
Goes To Show You That Discretionary Calls On Allocation Are Oft Times Affirmed On Appeal. K.G. Mullen, Inc. v. Kirakosian, Case No. B322602 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2026) (unpublished) primarily involved a construction “change order” dispute between a contractor and residential owner over construction of a steel deck at owner’s house. After a…
-
Appealability, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Because Order Taking A Civil Harassment Petition Off Calendar Was Not An Appealable Order, Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defense Had To Be Remanded To See If There Was A Prevailing Party
Whether A Prevailing Party Even Exists Should Be Determined By The Lower Court, But The Fee Motion Was Timely. In Raheb v. Williamson, Case No. B343023 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 4, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner sought to obtain a temporary restraining order against defendant, a condominium community fellow resident. This request was denied pending a…
-
Private Attorney General: Orange County Superior Court Judge Awards $959,853.73 To Four Organizations Prevailing In California Freedom To Read Act Case
Private Attorney General Statutes Justified The Award. In a case garnering attention in a May 1, 2026 article “Judge says city must pay $1M in court fees” published in the May 1, 2026 edition of The Orange County Register, Orange County Superior Court Judge Lindsey E. Martinez did award four organizations, in a tentative ruling,…