Work On The Motion Was Excessive. After a case was voluntarily dismissed, a defendant brought a SLAPP fee motion and requested $38,317.50 in mandatory fees as the prevailing party (inclusive of a 1.5 positive multiplier) in Kim v. Woocher, Case No. B337918 (Dec. 18, 2025) (unpublished). The lower court only granted $5,000 in fees based […]
Total Exposure For Orange County Approximates About $4.5 Million Former Orange County prosecutor Tracy Miller sued Orange County and certain DA defendants in a sexual harassment/retaliation case which went to trial in San Diego County Superior Court, resulting in a $3 million jury verdict. Recently, the trial judge decided that Plaintiff also was entitled to
Prematurity Arguments Were Rebuffed. In Barbanell v. Lodge, Case No. D084193 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 17, 2025) (unpublished), the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a longstanding water rights dispute, with the settlement agreement having an attorney’s fees clause allowing a prevailing party in a lawsuit arising out of the settlement to
Concurring Justice Suggests That Discovery Might Be Appropriate For Scrutiny Of Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay. Howard v. Koulax Enterprises, Case No. B335329 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 16, 2025) (unpublished) is yet another appellate decision remanding a case to the lower court after an employer litigant failed to timely pay arbitration expenses, with the
Remand Was To Determine If Employer Had An Excuse For Untimely Payment And Whether Employee Suffered Compensable Harm. Our local Santa Ana appellate court, in Pontes v. Intelliloan, Inc., Case No.. G064585 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 16, 2025) (unpublished), has joined an emerging majority of appellate courts in remanding, post-Hohenshelt v. Superior, 18 Cal.5th
CCP § 1008 Reconsideration Principles Did Not Govern; $95,182.75 Was The Fees/Costs Award. In Westwood Village Condominium Assn. v. Allen, Case No. A169848 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 15, 2025) (unpublished), HOA sued homeowners over alleged CC&R noise, parking, and littering violations, with HOA determining at some point that defendants cured the violations. Based on
$59,236 Payable To Respondent; $15,000 Payable To Appellate Clerk In Howell Management Services, LLC v. Rota, Case No. D086055 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 15, 2025) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA recently found appellant filed a frivolous appeal involving three orders, with AI hallucinations also found in the appellant’s appellate briefing (an unreasonable CRC violation). The
Absence Of A Settlement Agreement Was Critical, Not To Mention Facts Indicating That Tenants Forced The Dismissal Because Landlords Knew They Might Lose. In Treybig v. Meza, Case No. 2024-01416924 (Orange County Superior Court, App. Div. Nov. 20, 2025, posted Dec. 12, 2025) (published), tenants contested an unlawful detainer by arguing that landlords unreasonably refused
Cross-Complainant Sought $1.25 Million In Fees; Fees Were Appropriate Despite The Delay In Adding The FEHA Cross-Claim. This case is interesting to show how procedural rulings to add a claim at trial—such as a FEHA cross-claim—can make or break the affirmance of a subsequent fee award to the prevailing FEHA cross-complainant. Pak v. Rassman, Case
Facts Are Not Clear Cut To Require A Reversal As A Matter Of Law As In Recent 2/1 DCA Wilson Opinion. We accurately did predict that, post-Hohenshelt, many trial court decisions would be remanded to see if the employer had reasonable excuses to make untimely arbitration payment of expenses under CCP § 1287.97. That prediction
