JAMS May Have Sown Confusion By Extending Payment Deadline, So Excuses Needed Consideration Upon Transfer Of The Opinion From The Cal Supreme Court As we have seen in many previous posts, employer missed arbitration payment deadline cases are getting reversed and remanded in the wake of Hohenshelt, 18 Cal.5th at 331, which indicated that defaults
Appellate Court Could Not Discern Basis For The Substantial Reduction, So Remanded. In Costa v. Kral, Case No. G065336 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2026) (unpublished), there was no dispute that a civil harassment restraining order litigant prevailed and was entitled to fees under CCP § 527.6(s). Winning litigant moved for $21,237.50 in prevailing
Appellant Failed To Observe Many Appellate Rules Of Practice, Such That Affirmance Was In Order. Sarkany v. West, Case No. A174750 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 25, 2026) (unpublished) was a situation where plaintiffs won summary judgment in a fraudulent transfer action to preserve a substantial wrongful eviction judgment against the other side. The lower
A Lesson We Have Posted On Many Times Before—Separately Appeal, Protectively. In Boisot v. Logan, Case No. D085234 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 25, 2026) (unpublished), parties filed dueling requests for restraining orders against each other for online harassment. Respondent’s request was granted, but Appellant’s request was denied. Later, the lower court granted Respondent $32,541.40
Cross-Complainant’s Failure To Oppose the Fee Request Was Dispositive, With Trial Level Fee Award Affirmed And Remand To Consider Request For Appellate Fees. Anti-SLAPP motions which are granted give the winning defendants/cross-defendants the ability to seek reasonable, mandatory fees. In Thottam v. Edgar, Case No. B351320 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 24, 2026) (unpublished), a
. . . 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 In Meinhardt v. Sunny Acre LLC,Case No. B343467 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 23, 2026) (unpublished), the 2/5 DCA reversed a lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ case and imposition of an $84,600 attorney’s fees award where plaintiffs tardily filed joint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
