The Motion To Tax Costs Did Shift The Burden Back To The Costs Claimant—Not Met. In Deen v. Kreditor, Case No. G064426 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2026) (unpublished), a prevailing party on a prior appeal filed a costs memorandum for appellate costs totaling $1,184.65. The losing side filed a motion to tax appellate […]
Plaintiff Herself Was A Sophisticated Litigant, With The Lower And Appellate Courts Finding The Retainer Agreement Was Unambiguous In The Proper Allocation. Brinkman v. Jane Doe, Case No. A173377 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 24, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff disputed what portion of a settlement negotiated with two different bank defendants was
Fee Issues Depended On Further Actions. In O’Leary v. Jones III, Case No. D085327 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 24, 2026) (published), the Court of Appeal confirmed a denial of attorney’s fees to an arbitration respondent, who was never joined in a court action before the matter was ordered to arbitration such that the
Acting Presiding Justice Segal Penned The 3-0 Opinion On Various Merits, Costs, And Fee Issues In A 74-Page Opinion. In Beecham v. City of Azusa, Case No. B33843 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), deceased trustee, through a substituted personal presentative, sued two City entities (City), an irrigation company, and a water committee
CCP § 128.7(b)(2) Represented Litigant Exception Did Not Apply To (b)(1) Sanctions, Resulting In An Upholding Of A $25,013 Sanctions Award Against Losing Trustee. In Gerald C. Fox Foundation v. Fox, Case No. H053043 (6th Dist. Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), CCP § 128.7(b)(1) sanctions were imposed against a trustee who filed a new trust petition
Estate of Alders, Case No. A171324 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished) examines the diligence required from both litigants and superior courts to secure costs-of-proof sanctions for unreasonable denial of RFAs under CCP § 2033.420(a). There, a will contest proponent lost, via a summary judgment and trial, all of his claims, with the
Dissenting Justice Saw Things Differently: Superior Court Had To Independently Determine MFAA Award Issue Or Remand To The Arbitrator To Decide. Allan Law Group, P.C. v. Stewart, Case No. B333681 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) involves an interesting intersection between Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) and California Arbitration Act (CAA) principles where
The Matter Is Remanded To Look At A Restudy Of The Supplemental Declaration. Due process is alive and well in the attorney’s fees area, as Tres Caminos, LP v. MGP XI US Properties LLC, Case No. D085539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) demonstrates. It also shows the broad discretion given to a
Housing Accountability Act Standards Can Be Factored Into The Equation, With Trade Union Affiliations Not Showing It Made A Difference On The Financial Cost/Benefit Factor. In Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility v. City of Inglewood, Case No. B345195 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 19, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner won a CEQA challenge based on Housing Accountability
This Case Builds On Cases Applicable To Attorneys, But Extends The Prohibition To In Pro Per Litigants. In Sheerer v. Panas, Case No. A171804 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 19, 2026) (partially published; AI discussion published), the appellate court made clear that the recent California case authority which prohibits AI hallucinations equally applies to in
