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.
-
Costs: $38,568.63 Costs Award For Administrative Record Preparation In Favor Of Prevailing City Was Affirmed On Appeal
Plaintiff’s Failure To Include The Costs Memorandum Was Fatal. Citizens Against Marketplace Apt./Condominium Development v. City of San Ramon, Case Nos. A170988 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 24, 2026) (partially published; costs discussion not published) dealt with a $38,568.63 costs award to City for administrative record preparation in a case where it prevailed…
-
Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CCP § 473(a) Does Not Allow A Lower Court To Award Attorney’s Fees As A Condition Of Allowing An Amendment To Pleadings
4/1 DCA Disagreed With Treatise Commentary And An Older, Antiquated Supreme Court Case To The Contrary. In Amezcua v. Superior Court, Case No. D087216 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 24, 2026) (published), the appellate court reversed a $25,000 sanctions award under CCP § 473(a) to the extent it conditioned payment of attorney’s fees as a…
-
Family Law: Trial Court Abused Its Discretion By Basing Denial Of Section 2030 Fees And Costs Request On Grandmother’s Misuse Of Grandchildren’s 529 Accounts And Her Lack Of A Significant Relationship With Grandchildren
The Trial Court Was Required To Issue An Award Based On Whether Mandatory Findings Demonstrated Disparity In Access To Funds And Ability To Pay. In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B347642 (2d Dist., Div. 2 April 14, 2026) (unpublished), Visitation-seeking Grandmother appealed the trial court’s denial of her request for Family Code section…
-
Appeal Sanctions, Ethics, Sanctions, SLAPP: 1/4 DCA Affirms $41,580 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Self-Represented Appellant For Previous Appeal, Imposes $10,000 In Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, And Remands To Lower Court For Award Against Appellant For Fees Incurred By Respondent On Latest Appeal
In A Masterclass Of What Not To Do On Appeal, Self-Represented Appellant Challenged A Fee Award Ordered Against Him By Rehashing Issues Determined Previously On Appeal, Raising Issues Not Previously Raised, Attacking The Character Of Respondent And His Counsel, And Insulting Court Staff And Judicial Officers. In a case that has dragged on in excess…
-
Interest, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A False Claims Act Case, Postjudgment Interest Ran From The Date Of A Fees Award, Not An Earlier Order Confirming A Settlement
Earlier Order Did Not Qualify As A Money Judgment. Agreeing and disagreeing with some other circuits, the Ninth Circuit in Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., No. 24-6247 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2026) (published) held that postjudgment interest on a False Claims Act attorney’s fees award under 28 U.S.C. section 1961(a) runs from the order awarding…
-
Multipliers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Ninth Circuit Reverses and Remands A Multiplier Award In A False Claims Case, Disagreeing On The Merits Of The Award, But Agreeing That The Reason For The Enhancement Was Not Specific Enough.
Dissenting Circuit Judge M. Smith concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in determining this case to be “rare and exceptional” and thereby justifying such an enhancement. In must reading for attorneys seeking positive enhancements for a federal case in the Ninth Circuit, Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., Case No. 34-4103 (9th Cir.…
-
In The News . . . . OpEd Article In April 6, 2026 Issue Of The Orange County Register Shows That PAGA Lawsuits And Settlements Have Soared
Attorney Payouts Highlighted In The Article. Tom Manzo, founder of the California Business and Industrial Alliance, wrote an OpEd piece, “Will state get serious about labor code lawsuit reform?,” in the April 6, 2026 issue of The Orange County Register. In it, he mentions that in 2024, the year lawmakers were supposed to enact a…
-
Lodestar, Retainer Agreements: After Lower Court Determined That Retainer Agreement Was Unconscionable And Determined Client Owed Nothing Under A Quantum Meruit Recovery, The Appellate Court Reduced The Contractual Fee Award To Client For Dilatory Conduct
This Case Shows How, Even On Appeal, Justices Will Try To Balance Equity On Fee Awards. In Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae v. Yakobi, Case No. B338762 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 3, 2026) (unpublished), a client won a fee dispute against her former attorneys, with the lower court finding certain provisions…
-
Family Law: Under A Marital Settlement Agreement’s Prevailing Party Fee Clause, The Family Law Judge Can Consider Financial Needs Of The Litigants, Namely, Family Code Section 2030 And 2032 Factors
Civil Code Section 1717 Lodestar Factors Alone Do Not Restrict The Family Court In Deciding Prevailing Party Contractual Fees. Marriage of Bowman, Case No. B331924 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 3, 2026) (published) held that a family law judge can consider financial needs and ability to pay (Family Code section 2030 and 2032 factors) in…
-
Equity: Two Of Our Readers Obtained An Award Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs For Their Client (A Defendant/Cross-Complainant) As A Condition Of A Superior Court’s Order Equitably Vacating A Default Against A Cross-Defendant
This Is One Of The Larger Fee/Costs Award We Have Seen In This Area, But The Fees And Costs Encompassed Several Other Pre-Trial Proceedings On The Subject. Two readers of our blog, Ronald C. Foreman and Ian A. Hansen of Foreman & Brasso in San Francisco, are to be congratulated as well as “hat tipped”…