It Found Baron More Persuasive. In RMB Real Estate Investments 2, LLC v. California Capital Ins. Co., Case No. A170466 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 13, 2026) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed a case against an insurance carrier after determining that a 10:1 punitive ratio passed constitutional muster. However, on appeal, the issue arose as […]
Also, Attorney Fee’s Reductions Were Affirmed And Appellant Was Ordered to Pay Minimal Appeal Sanctions For AI Hallucinations In Appellate Briefing. The memorable thing about this opinion, Del Biaggio v. Bansen, Case No. A174647 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 10, 2026) (published), is what it determined in compensating paralegal work under a contractual fees clause
Plaintiffs Prevailed In Protracted, Bitterly-Fought Litigation Where The Jury Verdict Was Only Around $64,000 In Total. Although we usually post on California fees cases, the fee award in the federal civil rights case of NTN Collective v. Retsel Corporation d/b/a Grand Gateway Hotel, No. 5:22-cv-05027-KES (D.S.D. July 7, 2026 fee award; Doc. No. 485) caught
Delay In Asserting An Objection To Bifurcating Trial Was Dispositive. Perceived gamesmanship can be punished; we bloggers are not the judges of whether that has happened, but we only post on what we see is decided by the courts and subject to what you readers think when reading the case. Gamesmanship, we believe, was not
Because A Statutory Basis Allowed For Attorney’s Fees Recovery, Denial Based On A Lack Of A Contractual Basis For Fees Substantively Was Erroneous Where A Costs Memorandum Filing Allowed For Fee Recovery. In Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Sklar, Case No. B345528 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2026) (unpublished), somewhat of a follow-up
Reductions Fell Within The Deferential Standard Of Review For Fee Requests Under The Record In The Case Where A Fee Request Was Perceived As Excessive. The next case, Immigrants Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Sklar, Case No. B343410 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2026) (unpublished), shows that even though a litigant gets beyond a
Contractual Ambiguity Challenges Did Not Resonate, Because Not Raised Below. In Ventura Harbor Restaurant Associates, Inc. v. Ventura Port Dist., Case No. B344145 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 9, 2026) (certified for publication, after being filed on June 15, 2026 as an unpublished opinion), the appellate court affirmed a $137,400 contractual attorney’s fees award under
Reversal As A Matter Of Law Was The Result. Ex-husband’s attorney in Forrest v. Forrest, Case No. D086281 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 8, 2026) (unpublished) had a $5,000 monetary sanction imposed for certain conduct in a marital dissolution case, exclusively assessed under Family Code section 271. That sanction order was reversed as a matter
Litigant Did Not Need To Show Expenses Were Actually Incurred, Plus The Appellate Court Reminds Us That Civility Applies To Both Self-Represented And Represented Litigants. In Damak v. Superior Court, Case No. G065583 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2026) (published), a self-represented litigant (plaintiff) filed a motion to compel when the defense did not
The One Reduction Related To A Duplication Argument Not Supportable. In Rodriguez v. Paramount Convalescent Group, Inc., Case No. B344443 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 6, 2026) (unpublished), a trial court awarded $81,536.13 in attorney’s fees and costs under CCP § 128.5 against the defense and in favor of plaintiff where the defense violated the
