Opinion Held That A Prevailing Party In A Discrete Proceeding To Obtain A Replacement Arbitrator Is Entitled To Contractual Attorney’s Fees Award. On December 22, 2025, we posted on Barbanell v. Lodge, Case No. D081493 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 17, 2025), which was unpublished at the time. It held that a prevailing party in
Interlocutory Determination Of Entitlement Was Not Binding, With Section 3070 Being Inapplicable With Respect To Fee Recovery. Plaintiff won an apartment complex car towing dispute against some defendants, but she was denied requested attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 3070 in Ramsey v. Moore St. Investments, Inc., Case Nos. D084287 et al. (4th Dist., Div.
Plaintiff’s Aggressive Litigation Tactics Justified The Amount Of The Fee Award. In OneTaste Incorporated v. NetFlix, Case No. B342250 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion targeted against his defamation suit (the merits of which were affirmed in an earlier appellate court opinion), with the lower court awarding the
Clients In the Case Did Ratify, Which Earned The Settling Former Attorneys A Nice Contingency Fee Award. Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP, Case No. B341157 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 8, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion published) contains a good discussion of when a client can ratify an unauthorized settlement reached by former attorneys and
$1,286,144.37 Fee Award Against City Reversed And Remanded. Coalition of Pacificans for An Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica, Case No. A170704 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 30, 2025) (partially published; substantive fee discussion published) stands for the proposition that in fashioning a private attorney general fee award under CCP §
Plus, Wife Also Represented By Husband Lawyer Had Commonly Held Interests, So Her Fees Were Barred Under Trope. As we come to the end of 2025, we have a published opinion on the Trope v. Katz,11 Cal.4th 274 (1995) prohibition [our Leading Case #12]. The case is Honchariw v. PFM CA REIT, LLC, Case No.
Also, Respondents Can Get OSC Response Fees And Costs On The Issue. All practitioners should get attuned to the fact that appellate courts are imposing sanctions more frequently for CRC infractions, including referencing AI hallucinations and filing false paperwork. In Horton v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. D085379 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29,
Lack Of Reporter’s Transcript Meant There Was An Inadequate Record, But The Lower Court Correctly Applied Lodestar Principles In Fashioning An Award. Plaintiff homeowner successfully challenged an HOA board of directors election in Cruschen v. Annandale Townhouse Assn., Case No. B341189 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 24, 2025) (unpublished), although not winning some of his
Employer Paid Expenses 7 Days Late. The 2/6 DCA, in line with other intermediate appellate courts, remanded a decision not excusing an employer from paying arbitration expenses within 30 days, in Doe v. Lawyers for Employee and Consumer Rights, Case No. B330052 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 23, 2025) (unpublished), referencing Hohenshelt, 18 Cal.5th 310.
Mike, Shanna, and Marc’s Top Twenty-Two Fee Decisions for 2025—Part 2 of 2. Here is Part 2 of our Top 22 Fee/Costs Decisions for 2025. Happy Holidays to our readers! 11. Section 998. Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, 17 Cal.5th 592(Cal. Supreme Court Mar. 20, 2025): CCP § 998 offers do apply to pretrial settlements,
