Although She Was Unsuccessful On Some Claims, The Work Was Interrelated Such That Neither Allocation Nor A Further Reduction Was Required. In Gonzalez v. County of Fresno, Case No. F086776 (5th Dist. Apr. 16, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff recovered on a Bane Act claim (which has a fee-shifting statute), even though she failed to recover […]
Routine Costs Were Also Awarded, No “Double Dip.” In California State Grange v. San Louis Obispo Guild Hall, Case No. B326399 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 15, 2025) (unpublished), among other issues, the appellate court affirmed an award of fees as damages to a prevailing party on a slander of title claim. Fees and
MFAA Deadlines Are Strict, Not Subject To CCP § 473 Relief. Plaintiff/former client in Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck v. Shah, Case No. H051614 (6th Dist. Apr. 11, 2025) (unpublished) was unhappy that her former counsel sent an outstanding $200,000 receivable notice even though they were instrumental in working up a case resulting in
Case Involved San Francisco Penalty Refunds Of $1.7 Million Which Were Affirmed In A Prior Published Opinion. Plaintiffs in Gajanan, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, Case No. A168328 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 10, 2025) (unpublished) sued defendants to obtain tax penalty refunds in a case under San Francisco regulations, eventually
Other Items Also Had To Be Revisited. In the FEHA area, if appropriately raised, lower courts must take into account plaintiff’s financial situation in making a costs award against a non-prevailing FEHA plaintiff even where plaintiff’s case was deemed frivolous. The lower court did award costs against the plaintiff, finding indigency was irrelevant in
No Indication Case Was Frivolous. We have posted on an emerging trend in FEHA cases, which is that routine costs cannot be assessed against a non-prevailing plaintiff unless the case is deemed frivolous. Vanrooy v. Jacobes-Downing-Hughes, Inc., Case No. C100312 (3d Dist. Apr. 7, 2025) (unpublished) is a continuation of that theme. There, plaintiff’s claims
Survey Shows Increases In Class Action Case Numbers, Corporate Litigation Budgets Spent On Class Actions, And In-House Counsel Time Spent On Them, With Labor/Employment And Consumer Fraud Actions Leading The Class Action Pack. The 2025 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey, which is publicly available, has just been issued. It has interesting trends for class
Prelitigation Demand, Causation, And Primary Relief Elements Were Satisfied. Plaintiffs in San Diego Tenant Union v. San Diego Housing Comm’n, Case No. D081773 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 28, 2025) (unpublished) sued defendant to force it to increase housing-assisted payments in wealthier neighborhood, advancing a perpetual segregation theory under FEHA, the Unruh Act, contractual
$58,223 Was The Fee Award, With A Credit For Smaller CCP § 128.7 Sanctions. In ATM Professional, Inc. v. Repiping.com, Inc., Case No. B331046 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 26, 2025) (unpublished), alter ego defendants obtained a dismissal (based on failure to name an indispensable party, the contract signatory) in a declaratory relief complaint
A Remand Was Ordered On The Civil Component And A Possible Penalty Payable To The Court. Talk about interesting issues; well, there was one considered by the 4/1 DCA in Razuki v. Malan, Case No. D082560 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished). There, plaintiff was assessed with a $200,000 sanctions award
