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.
-
Arbitration: $220,817 Arbitration Fee Award Is Affirmed In Favor Of One Plaintiff, Because Moncharsh Did Not Show A Basis For Arbitral Reversal
Lower Court’s Denial Of Post-Judgment Vacatur Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff/Employee Was Justified. In Fishman v. Advisors LLP, Case No. B334179 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 15, 2026) (unpublished), a couple of former lawyers/nonequity partners sued their former law firm for compensation and over the validity of a non-compete clause. There were various proceedings; however, one…
-
Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers: $2,376,677.50 Fee Award Is Affirmed On Appeal
Lower Court Did Reduce The Request By $348,208.50, And It Correctly Denied A Positive Multiplier Request By Plaintiff. In Maas v. McKinnon Broadcasting Co., Case No. D082767 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 13, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a $1,775,000 jury verdict after a four-week trial in a discrimination case, although she did not win on…
-
Allocation, Section 1717: Appellate Court Affirms A Substantial Fee And Costs Award In A Mixed Contract/Tort Case Based On Santisas
Case Drew Three Opinions, A Concurrence Finding 70% Defense Allocation For Tort Claims Was Reasonable, But With A Dissenting Justice Finding More Delineation Between Contract/Tort Claims Was In Order. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) [our Leading Case #6] was substantively upfront and center in National Merchants Assn. v. Commercial Bank of California, Case…
-
Homeowner Associations: Losing Party’s Failure To Oppose Prevailing Neighbor’s Fee Award Was Fatal On Appeal
A Forfeiture Occurred. Bauer v. Likhterman, Case No. G064695 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 12, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Scott for a 3-0 panel, reminds litigants and practitioners that an appellate challenge to a fee award will be forfeited if there is no opposition to the fees motion in the court below. (Blackburn v.…
-
Arbitration, Section 1717: Barbanell Decision Now Published
Opinion Held That A Prevailing Party In A Discrete Proceeding To Obtain A Replacement Arbitrator Is Entitled To Contractual Attorney’s Fees Award. On December 22, 2025, we posted on Barbanell v. Lodge, Case No. D081493 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 17, 2025), which was unpublished at the time. It held that a prevailing party in…
-
Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Winning Plaintiff In Car Towing Dispute Did Not Have Fee Recovery Entitlement Under Civil Code Section 3070
Interlocutory Determination Of Entitlement Was Not Binding, With Section 3070 Being Inapplicable With Respect To Fee Recovery. Plaintiff won an apartment complex car towing dispute against some defendants, but she was denied requested attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 3070 in Ramsey v. Moore St. Investments, Inc., Case Nos. D084287 et al. (4th Dist., Div.…
-
SLAPP: SLAPP Merits Appeal Did Not Stay Any Fee Proceeding For The Prevailing SLAPP Defendant
Plaintiff’s Aggressive Litigation Tactics Justified The Amount Of The Fee Award. In OneTaste Incorporated v. NetFlix, Case No. B342250 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion targeted against his defamation suit (the merits of which were affirmed in an earlier appellate court opinion), with the lower court awarding the…
-
Ethics, Settlement: Client May Ratify An Unauthorized Settlement Unless It Was Not Truly Voluntary
Clients In the Case Did Ratify, Which Earned The Settling Former Attorneys A Nice Contingency Fee Award. Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP, Case No. B341157 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 8, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion published) contains a good discussion of when a client can ratify an unauthorized settlement reached by former attorneys and…
-
Private Attorney General: Lower Court Abused Its Discretion In Awarding Fees Under CCP § 1021.5 Without Considering Specific Factors Outlined In The Housing Accountability Act
$1,286,144.37 Fee Award Against City Reversed And Remanded. Coalition of Pacificans for An Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica, Case No. A170704 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 30, 2025) (partially published; substantive fee discussion published) stands for the proposition that in fashioning a private attorney general fee award under CCP §…
-
Section 1717: Fee Recovery By Self-Represented Husband Reversed As A Matter Of Law Under Trope Prohibition, With CCP § 1021 Characterization Being Inconsequential
Plus, Wife Also Represented By Husband Lawyer Had Commonly Held Interests, So Her Fees Were Barred Under Trope. As we come to the end of 2025, we have a published opinion on the Trope v. Katz,11 Cal.4th 274 (1995) prohibition [our Leading Case #12]. The case is Honchariw v. PFM CA REIT, LLC, Case No.…