However, CCP § 473 Principles Can Excuse An Untimely Payment By A Company Or Employer Desiring Arbitration With Respect To Tardy Payment Of Employee’s Or Consumer’s Arbitration Expenses. Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, Case No. S284498 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 11, 2025) (published) finally resolved an intermediate appellate split in thinking on whether the CCP […]
Attorneys Should Have Latitude To Represent Clients In Settlement Activities Without Fear Of Suits By Third Parties, Including the Beneficiary of the Settlement Funds. In Ramirez v. McCormack, Case No. B340986 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 8, 2025) (published), the appellate court vindicated that attorneys representing their clients in a settlement agreement generally do
Petitioner’s Dilatory Request For Subpoena Enforcement Before The DMV Hearing Officer Did Not Warrant Fees Under Government Code Section 800. Government Code section 800 requires an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing complainant in a civil action to review a ruling in an administrative proceeding, but only if the award, finding, or determination
Many Of The Attorneys Billed At Least $1,300 Per Hour. According to an August 8, 2025 article by Andrew Khouri and David Zahniser in the Los Angeles Times, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, representing City of Los Angeles, in a homeless encampment case after a favorable municipal ruling by SCOTUS on the legality of
Although Reducing The Requested Hourly Rates For Sonoma County, The Rest Of The Lodestar Request And 1.5 Positive Multiplier Request Were Affirmed. In Pelayo v. Utility Partners of America, LLC, Case No. A171211 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 7, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff employees settled with employer, after contentious litigation on the eve of trial,
On Appeal, Appellant Failed To Take Trial Court’s Findings Into Account, And Failed To Show Abuse Of Discretion. Prevailing petitioner, a local citizens group, successfully obtained a preliminary injunction to vindicate CEQA concerns in Save Petaluma v. City of Petaluma, Case No. A169925 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 5, 2025) (unpublished). It successfully fought
Because The Statute Is Discretionary, The Trial Judge Was The One To Determine If Fees Should Be Awarded. In G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks, Case No. B337103 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 5, 2025) (unpublished), the 2/6 DCA reversed a trial court’s ruling that there was no Brown Act violation because an
The First Fee Award Appeal Divested Appellate Court Of Jurisdiction On Second Award. Weaklend v. Weaklend, Case Nos. D086167 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2025) (unpublished) confirms that an appellate court is divested of jurisdiction from considering an appeal of a subsequent Family Code section 2030 fee award where the same
Costs Against Plaintiff Also Narrowed To Law Firm’s Work On An IIED Claim. What happened in Martin v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Case Nos. H050803 et al. (6th Dist. July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is that plaintiff brought a legal malpractice suit against two individual attorneys and their law firm, although plaintiff was non-suited
If You Include Language Like “Or Could Have Been Brought,” This Might Well Be Invalidating For An Offer—Drafting Tip to All! Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Enchante Accessories, Inc., Case No. B337902 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is an excellent reminder of how to structure CCP § 998 offers with releases
