$12,500 Was The Sanctions Tab Against A Third-Party Law Firm; $11,517.50 Was The Sanctions Award Against Another Third Party. We have related sanctions awards to third parties for subpoenas issued by an employee in both Crider v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Case No. B342274 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 29, 2026) (unpublished) and Crider […]
Nothing Showed The Jury Earlier Had Awarded Fees As Damages, With The Prevailing Party’s Section 1717 Fee Request Being Incident To Prevailing Party’s Principal Cause Of Action. In 2540 Main Street Plaza, LLC v. Jiu-Jitsu Corp., Case No. G065859 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 27, 2026) (unpublished), landlord prevailed against tenants in a commercial lease
Ex-Wife Paid Nearly Double The Amount Of Fees To Her Attorney And She Would Get Trust Loans To Pay Ex-Husband, Justifying The Family Court Award. In the area of Family Code section 2030, the end goal is to level the “playing field” for family court litigants. The next case, Marriage of Khym & Miner, Case
Non-Complexity Of Issues, Lack Of Success From Stated Goals, And Upward Adjustment Of Past Hourly Rates To Future Periods Of The Litigation Justified The .07 (Negative) Multiplier And No Award Of A Positive Multiplier. Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G064718 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026) (unpublished) is a
Some Of The Sanctions Were Apportioned Separately Against Supervising Partners And Mid-Level Associates, With Some Of The Attorneys Having To Submit To Ethical Curriculum Requirements—In A Word, Partners, Prudently Supervise Your Associates! Although we do not want to mention names (because it out there in the public media anyway), District Judge Chen of the Northern
Appeal Of $72,476.87 Sanctions Award Against Ex-Husband Deemed Frivolous. Just to give you a sense of the dollar amounts of appellate sanctions imposed in one Division of the Second District, the Ventura Court of Appeal, in Marriage of Walther, Case No. B340131 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 20, 2026) (unpublished), found ex-husband’s appeal of a
Reason Was That The Grant Of Fees/Costs Was Summarily Made, Not Meeting Specificity Requirements Under CCP § 128.5. Although we have not looked at the underlying papers in this matter, we can say that Lichtenstein v. Stalley, Case No. B347325 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 19, 2026) (unpublished) reminds that a plaintiff defeating a SLAPP
Marriage of Aviles Opinion Supported The Result. Marriage of Chevallier & Rodriguez, Case No. H052644 et al. (6th Dist. May 15, 2026) (unpublished) determined a litigant, who together with her boyfriend did not file Declarations of Domestic Partnership with California’s Secretary of State, was properly denied an attorney’s fees award by the lower court because
On Remand, Only Contract Claim Work Could be Awarded, Not On Non-Contract Claims—Lower Court Vested With Discretion To Allocate On Remand. McCain v. Edwards, Case No. C101256 (3d Dist. May 14, 2026) (unpublished) is a very contested case where, eventually, some non-signatory, alter ego targets evaded exposure where the contract between the predicate signatory and
Although Spoliation and Motion To Compel Issues Were Inextricably Intertwined, Motion To Compel Ruling Supported The Sanctions Award Where The Claimed Expenses Were Not Allocated To Any Specific Relief. In Glickman v. Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, Case No. G065111 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 13, 2026) (unpublished), our local Santa Ana Court, in a 3-0
