Consideration Of Equitable Factors Other Than Disparity and Ability To Pay Are Not Allowable Under Section 2030. In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B340089 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 23, 2025) (unpublished), the lower court denied a Family Code section 2030 needs-based fee request by ex-wife in connection with child support modification […]
Lower Court Cut Fees Request In Half, Which Was Erroneous, But Respondent’s Failure To Appeal Means The Reduction Did Not Aggrieve Appellants, the Tenants. In Papageorges v. Dana Point Harbor Partners, Case No. G063688 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 20, 2025) (unpublished), the upshot from this opinion is that a respondent may want to
Remand Was Required Because Appellate Court Reversed SLAPP Grant On Three Out Of Six Cross-Claims. City of San Jose v. Gradetech, Inc., Case No. H051462 (6th Dist. June 17, 2025) (unpublished) is a situation where a cross-defendant successfully SLAPPed a cross-complaint with six causes of action brought by the City and where the lower
Lower Court’s Determination That No Party Prevailed For Routine Cost Purpose Was Reversed With Directions To Award Costs To Dismissed Defendant. In Shapell SoCal Rental Properties, LLC v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., Case No. G063663 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), tenant and landlord were involved in an Orange County unlawful detainer action
Be Careful What You Put In Your 998 Offers, Don’t Overreach. In T&R Painting and Drywall v. Town Building & Development, Case Nos. B330375 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), there was a convoluted dispute between a plaintiff subcontractor and a defendant general contractor, with general contractor bringing a cross-complaint
Trial And Appellate Fees/Costs Remanded To The Trial Court, Given Cross-Defendants’ Partial Success. Wald v. Martin, Case Nos. B335960 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 16, 2025) (unpublished), illustrates how a partial reversal of a SLAPP grant generally leads to a reversal and remand of the subsequent fees/costs award to a prevailing defendant
Case Explores Fee Clause Interpretation, An Award Of Fees To An Unlicensed Associate Supervised By A California Attorney, And An Award Of Expert Witness Costs Which Were Not Pled Or Proven As Damages. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. 250 Fourth Development LP, Case No. A169470 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 13, 2025) (unpublished) is
Although Notice Of Motion For Appellate Fees Was Untimely, Record Showed That The Lower Court Granted An Extension Request To Ex-Husband As Moving Party. In Marriage of Richards, Case Nos. G062449 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 13, 2025) (unpublished), ex-wife appealed a Family Code section 271 sanctions and contractual marital stipulation fee
Cross-Complainants Did Fess Up To The Problem, With The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Sanctions Hearing Further Showing No Abuse Of Discretion In The Denial Of The Sanctions Request. Although we take the cases as we find them for posting purposes, the next one was a dispute over an apparent snafu in
However, The Lower Court Did Reduce The Fee Request Because of Unusually Redacted Time Entries. The Fifth District, in Trunick v. Calloway, Case No. F086766 (5th Dist. June 11, 2025) (unpublished), affirmed an award of attorney’s fees to a beneficiary who was instrumental in removing co-trustees in a probate dispute. In earlier proceedings, the
