Trial Judge Needed To Assess Culpability And Whether Missed Payment Was Excusable. In Aqua Blue Constr., Inc. v. Goshorn, Case No. B338632 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 24, 2026) (unpublished), an appellate court—post-Hohenshelt—has reversed and remanded a case to see if the party making a missed arbitration payment under CCP § 1281.9 was culpable and […]
Appellate Court Did Remind Counsel They Need To Notify Courts About Bankruptcy Filings Which Might Implicate Whether The Stay Is In Place. Navellier v. Putnam, Case No. A172077 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 2, 2026 unpublished; published on Feb. 23, 2026; posted on Feb. 24, 2026) [bankruptcy discussion published; fee award entitlement and lodestar analysis
The Winning Attorneys In A 4-Man Firm Had An Impressive Robison-Patmas Act Litigation Record. In L.A. Int’l Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., Case Nos. 24-3776 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2026) (published), a 4-man firm obtained a substantial liability determination and permanent injunction on behalf Wholesales in a Robinson-Patman Act case, with the
Fifth District So Holds In A Contentious Matter. The Fifth District, in Wash v. Wash, Case Nos. F084442/F084443 (5th Dist. Feb. 23,, 2026) (unpublished), confirmed that a contractual fees clause in a settlement agreement, when properly incorporated into a subsequent judgment, can give rise to a fee recovery for a prevailing party under Civil Code
There Needed To Be More Explanation For The Fee Reduction. Unfortunately, there is no bright-line rule relating to lower court fee “haircuts” at the state court level, although some civil rights decision may suggest there is. On the federal level, the Moreno from the Ninth Circuitsays that a fee haircut over 10% needs an explanation.
Procedural Challenge Did Not Prevail. In City of El Monte v. Lincoln, Case No. B344087 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 23, 2026) (unpublished), City lost a post-judgment fee order against plaintiff based on losing successive demurrers based on Civil Code section 3496. That section, applying to abatement by a municipality relating to a controlled substance,
Lower Court Reduced The Requested $95,519.88 In Appellate Fees To Almost Half. In Malik v. Carlson & Gevelinger, Case No. C101751 (3d Dist. Feb. 20, 2026) (unpublished), prevailing defendants earlier had been awarded SLAPP trial level fees of $14,960 (out of a requested $37,917.48) against plaintiffs, with the lower court reducing for requested hourly rates
Santisas, Unilateral Fee-Shifting, And Section 1717 Principles Led To The Reversal. Cross-complainants voluntarily dismissed their cross-complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, disgorgement, Business and Professions Code section 7160 fraudulent inducement to enter a contract, and unjust enrichment as against two individual cross-defendants alleged to be
Lower Court Even Applied Discounted Hourly Rates Stipulated To By Defense Counsel–No Abuse of Discretion Demonstrated. In Qassimyar v. Ortega, Case No. D084317 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 19, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion brought by two sets of defendants. The merits determination was affirmed on appeal, but plaintiff also contested mandatory fee
Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in
