Buyers Had Substantial Justification To File A Specific Performance Suit And Oppose The Lis Pendens Expungement Motion. Under CCP § 405.38, a prevailing party on a motion to expunge a lis pendens is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs “unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or […]
2/2 DCA So Holds. Bonin v. Chayes, Case No. B340106 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 29, 2025) (unpublished) is a good reminder to judgment collection attorneys that appellate fees by a judgment creditor incurred to defend an underlying judgment are not collectible under the Enforcement of Judgments Act. Here is the quote: “Plaintiff cannot
Even Though There Was No Time To Give The Safe Harbor Notice, Party Seeking Sanctions Needed To Ask For A Continuance Of The Motion Which Was Target Of Sanctions. In Junkers2Jewels, LLC v. McClaney, Case No. B339900 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2025) (unpublished), which was factually dependent, the appellate panel affirmed a
Multiple Grounds Supported The Fee Denial. By now, followers of our blog know that plaintiffs can request fees for denial of a defense anti-SLAPP motion if the lower court believes that the defense motion was frivolous under CCP § 128.5 standards. In ANE Holdings, LLC v. Purity Preserved, LLC, Case No. D083065 (4th Dist.,
Appellate Court Determined That Seller “Commenced The Action,” So Mediation Did Not Apply To Buyer’s Responsive Cross-Complaint. In Triad Properties v. Pini, Case No. B333958 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 28, 2025) (unpublished), the issue focused on whether a real estate contract mediation clause, where a party commencing a suit had to attempt mediation
Trial Court Needed To Provide More Reasoning For Its Reduction In The Request. Under Corporations Code section 17704.10(g), if a trial court “finds the failure of the limited liability company to comply with the requirements of this section is without justification, the court may award an amount sufficient to reimburse the person bringing the action for
Reversal Was As A Matter Of Law, Based Primarily On Due Process Grounds. Wright v. Wright, Case No. B327043 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 23, 2025) (unpublished) is a good reminder that a CCP § 128.7 filed motion must clearly articulate the grounds for sanctions and rebut the grounds in the targeted underlying motions
Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion On The Fee Award—It Cut The Requested Fees By $525,342.75. In Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B327196 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 23, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion not published), a plaintiff sued City of Los Angeles under FEHA for a hostile work environment
Welfare & Institutions Code Section 15657.5 Allows For A Mandatory Fee Award. In Letitchevski v. Sosa, Case No. B333962 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 22, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff, on behalf of a dependent father, won a financial elder abuse claim involving father’s adult son, by which a property transfer was voided, $13,500 was awarded
Appellate Court Did Discuss When The Action Is Contract Versus Tort, But The Case Did Not Have Tort Holdover Or Ouster Issues. In an unlawful detainer case, the nature of the case may determine whether a landlord’s voluntarily dismissal allows the tenant an entitlement to attorney’s fees, which invokes the Santisas principle. (See Our
