. . . Inclusive Of A Total Of $957,640.27 In Fees And Costs Award Components. Arbitration awards, even if wrong on the merits, are difficult to overturn based on the latitude afforded arbitrators in the absent of an arbitration agreement requiring more stringent protocols. Shifrin v. Strata Equity Global, Inc., Case No. D085526 (4th Dist., […]
$84,600 In Attorney’s Fees Went POOF! With The Merits Reversal. In Meinhardt v. Sunny Acre LLC,Case No. B343467 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 23, 2026) (unpublished), the 2/5 DCA reversed a lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ case and imposition of an $84,600 attorney’s fees award where plaintiffs tardily filed joint pretrial disclosures the day before
The Contractual Attorney’s Lien Was Between Plaintiff And The Client, So No Fiduciary Duty Was Owed By The Other Firm Members To Plaintiffs. In Palmieri v. Foondos, Case No. C100383 (3d Dist. June 22, 2026) (unpublished), a fight developed between plaintiff and other members of a law firm she left with respect to recovery of
$12,500 In Attorney’s Fees Was The Result. In Loew v. Robinson, Case No. B346996 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 22, 2026) (unpublished), a litigant dismissing a civil harassment restraining order, after obtaining a liminal temporary restraining order, was assessed $12,500 in attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 under a discretionary fee-shifting statute as against the
FRCP 11 Was The Source Of The Sanctions, With Monetary Sanctions Depending On Whether The Conduct Was In Bad Faith Or Merely Careless. We have blogged on numerous California appellate opinions sanctioning attorneys for utilizing AI when it produced hallucinations for which opposing parties or the appellate courts must parse through, eventually discovering that the
. . . But Fees Had To Be Allocated To Only Successful Claims Because Opponent Prevailed On Some Issues. The Colony at Cal. Oaks HOA v. Majestic Asset Mgt., LLC, Case No. D083140 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2026) (unpublished) was an HOA versus certain member dispute involving a golf course. The case, on
This Follows Its Earlier Conclusion In The Published Clapkin Case. On March 17, 2026, we posted on Clapkin v. Levin, 119 Cal.App.5th 222 (2026), a 2/7 DCA opinion where the appellate court determined that an order denying a SLAPP fee motion is not appealable. The same Division followed that reasoning in Moussazadeh v. Integrative Surgical
Opinion Affirmed A Negative Multiplier And Rejection Of A Positive Multiplier When Prevailing Employee Challenged The Fee Award As Too Small Under The Abuse Of Discretion Review Standard. In our May 29, 2026 post, we discussed Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G06478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026 filed;
More Generalized H&S Code Section 17984 Did Not Trump More Specific, Recently Enacted Statute, With Sisters Being The Parties Obtaining Their Specific Litigation Objectives Although The County Did Somewhat Prevail On More Tangential Issues. In County of Del Norte v. Britt, Case No. A173145 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion
Attorneys’ Safe Harbor/Technical § 128.7 Arguments Were Forfeited Because They Were Not Raised Before The Lower Court—Not To Mention Attorneys Could Have Withdrawn Their Stay Opposition. Bad facts generally lead to losing appeals, and possibly more repercussions. Here, both the lower and appellate courts found that lead attorneys in two overlapping class actions had incredulous
