Sanctions Against Counsel Before They Appeared In The Action Had To Be Carved Out. Alanic International Corp. v. Wilson Trial Group, Case No. B334512 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 23, 2025) (unpublished) is a good refresher for litigants and their counsel to remember that as litigation progresses and there are admissions that there are […]
Opinion Shows How Substantial Expenses Can Be Shifted. Doe v. Accor Hotels & Resorts, LLC, Case No. A167247 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2025) (unpublished, posted on July 22, 2025) was where a prevailing defendant group won $108,000 based on a successful CCP § 998 offer and $39,140 (out of a
Substantial Reduction Needed To Be Restudied. On June 29, 2025, we posted on Tidrick v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 22, 2025) (now published), but unpublished at the time. It basically reversed a fee award based on not using venue-based hourly rates and after making what the appellate
Inquiry Is Factually Based; At The End, Other Spouse Did Not Show That There Was A True Attorney-Client Independent Representation. We have posted often on Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995), which held that lawyers appearing in pro per to litigate their own claims cannot recover prevailing party contractual claims under Civil Code
$14,000 In Routine Costs Reversed Because It Exceeded The $1,000 Cap. Freedom of contract was the theme resonating in the result in Gogal v. Deng, Case No. D084158 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 22, 2025) (published). The case was a residential landlord-tenant dispute where tenants were prevailing parties but had a contractual lease clause
One Of The Largest Awards We Have Seen In This Area. Under this category, we frequently post on substantial awards to HOAs, substantial awards to homeowners, no awards to either, or partial awards to each which are either great, disappointing, or disastrous. We now report on a recent result reported in the San Francisco
No Prevailing Party Determination Was No Abuse Of Discretion. “Mixed results” is a real challenge for a litigant seeking fees under a contractual fees clause or a statutory fee-shifting basis, such as the Davis-Stirling Act. The lower court in Drohan v. Newcombe, Case Nos. C097894 et al. (3d Dist. July 18, 2025) (unpublished) decided that
Sellers Wanted Over $2.5 Million—Did Not Happen, Based On Lower Court’s Apportionment Which Was Found Appropriate. Where different contracts are involved and no success/limited success is involved, California law gives deference to a lower court to fashion a reasonable award and even apportion fees based on the facts. That is what occurred in Life
Prevailing Party Determination Was Discretionary, With The Lower Court Not Abusing Its Discretion. Under Civil Code section 1717, if no side gets an unqualified win, a lower court determines the prevailing party on the contract by comparing the relief awarded on claims with the parties’ claim demands and their litigation objectives as well as
Both Sides Appealed The Fee Award, But It Was Affirmed In Entirety. After an adjacent property owner and HOA settled an easement dispute in which $350,000 was paid to plaintiff, an attorney’s fees motion based on the settlement agreement contractual fees clause was partially granted in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff moved for $164,258.50 in fees,
