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of directors election in Cruschen v. Annandale Townhouse Assn., Case No. B341189 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 24, 2025) (unpublished), although not winning some of his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within 30 days, in Doe v. Lawyers for Employee and Consumer Rights, Case No. B330052 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 23, 2025) (unpublished), referencing Hohenshelt, 18 Cal.5th 310.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,
Mike, Shanna, and Marc’s Top Twenty-Two Fee Decisions for 2025– Part 1 of 2. As is our tradition during the Holidays, we post on the top twenty-two fees/costs decisions from 2025, keeping in mind that this is a subjective ranking and does not take away from other published decisions of interest to litigants, practitioners, and
Circumstances Did Not Fall Into “Legally Dispositive Facts” Vacatur Principle. In VIP Mortgage Incorporated v. Gates, No. 24-7624 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2025) (published), a vacatur request was denied where an arbitration award granted attorney’s fees and costs to a plaintiff on the defense’s counterclaims even though the parties had stipulated that fees and costs
Prevailing Party Voluntarily Lowered Its Fee Request Down From $142,842. Prevailing landlord was given a second chance when the lower court observed that billing substantiation was severely redacted and post-judgment work had been included in 2503 Haste Street Owner, LLC v. FanX, Inc., Case No A170902 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 19, 2025) (unpublished). What
Prior Opinions In Plaintiffs’ Favor Had No Precedential Value. In Make UC A Good Neighbor et al. v. Regents of University of California, Case No. A172510 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 19, 2025) (published), the appellate court affirmed that plaintiffs were not “successful” parties for private attorney general purposes despite winning favorable appellate precedents at
Plaintiff Argued That The Fees Disclosure Invaded The Attorney-Client Privilege, An Argument Rejected At Both The Trial And Appellate Levels. In what we consider to be a very pragmatically reasoned decision, Johnson v. Rubylin, Inc., Case No. H053076 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2025) (published) decided that the attorney-client privilege does not support a disability plaintiff
