Cases: Allocation

Allocation, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Could Make Allocation Of Fees Between Contract/Tort Claims, But It Erred In Not Allowing Opposing Party To Review/Contest A Supplemental Declaration From The Fee Claimant To Support The Final Fee Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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fees area, as Tres Caminos, LP v. MGP XI US Properties LLC, Case No. D085539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) demonstrates.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 […]

Allocation, Probate, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where There Were Dueling Probate Petitions For Financial Elder Abuse Claims, The Prevailing Petitioner—Even Though A Cross-Respondent Defensing The Unsuccessful Elder Abuse Petition—Was Entitled To Intertwined Fee Work For Prevailing As A Petitioner And Defending As A Cross-Respondent

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Probate, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in

Allocation, Fees On Fees, Homeowner Associations, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Defendant Homeowners Prevailing On Deck/Gazebo Construction Dispute Were Properly Awarded A Total Of $615,118.37 In Fees And Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fees on Fees, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

CC&R And Nuisance Claims Were Intertwined, So No Apportionment Required, And Fee Excessive Claims Were Not Supported By Record Citations. Finley v. Gantz, Case No. D084145 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) reinforces a message we have refrained in the past: homeowner disputes can be expensive for the losing side, which will allow

Allocation, Homeowner Associations, Lodestar: Plaintiff Replacement Trustee Losing Condo Fire Repair Lawsuit Under Governing Documents And Interrelated Tort Claims Properly Assessed With Attorney’s Fees In Favor Of HOA And Condo Manager

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Lodestar

$102,547.50 Was The Award, With No Apportionment Necessary And With It Being Reasonable In Nature. LaPay v. The Fairways Homeowner’s Assn., Case No. E082827 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 23, 2026) (unpublished) is a case showing how an HOA acted reasonably in making fire-related damage repairs when it could not locate an owner and demonstrating

Allocation, Section 1717: Appellate Court Affirms A Substantial Fee And Costs Award In A Mixed Contract/Tort Case Based On Santisas

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Case Drew Three Opinions, A Concurrence Finding 70% Defense Allocation For Tort Claims Was Reasonable, But With A Dissenting Justice Finding More Delineation Between Contract/Tort Claims Was In Order. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) [our Leading Case #6] was substantively upfront and center in National Merchants Assn. v. Commercial Bank of California, Case

Allocation, Costs, Employment: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying Costs To The Winning Defendant On Non-FEHA Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Defense Should Have Apportioned In Its Moving Papers Or Asked For Supplemental Briefing Opportunity.             In Janisse v. MLK-L.A. Healthcare Corp., Case No. B326593 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 3, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff brought FEHA/whistleblower, and non-FEHA claims against defendant. Plaintiff lost all of her claims after a jury trial. The defense

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: In A Dispute With Dueling Claims Involving A Purchase Of A Senior Housing Facility, Sellers Properly Were Awarded $722,530.01 In Attorney’s Fees For Breach Of An Escrow Holdback Agreement

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Sellers Wanted Over $2.5 Million—Did Not Happen, Based On Lower Court’s Apportionment Which Was Found Appropriate.                Where different contracts are involved and no success/limited success is involved, California law gives deference to a lower court to fashion a reasonable award and even apportion fees based on the facts.  That is what occurred in Life

Allocation, Civil Rights: Plaintiff Prevailing on a Bane Act Claim Awarded $829,702.50 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights

Although She Was Unsuccessful On Some Claims, The Work Was Interrelated Such That Neither Allocation Nor A Further Reduction Was Required.                In Gonzalez v. County of Fresno, Case No. F086776 (5th Dist. Apr. 16, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff recovered on a Bane Act claim (which has a fee-shifting statute), even though she failed to recover

Allocation: Where Trial Judge Asks For Allocation Based On Partial Success Of Different Claims, You Need To Do A Rigorous Apportionment

Cases: Allocation

Requests Totaling $427,102.50 For Partially Prevailing Defendants/Cross-Complainants Reduced To Awards Totaling $141,904.94 Based On Failure to Specifically Apportion.                Apportionment of attorney’s fees among claims generally is a discretionary call for the trial judge, even though allocation should be undertaken unless the attorney work was inextricably intertwined on the claims (which is an after-the-fact determination

Allocation: Prevailing Party On Two Previous Appeals Won More Fees Because The Opposing Parties Did Not Show Why Further Fees Were Unwarranted

Cases: Allocation

Because Complaint And Cross-Complaint Had Common Core Facts/Issues Which Were Inextricably Intertwined, No Apportionment Was Required—Discretionary, Only. Etched stone at the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse, Sacramento, California.  Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. October 2009. Library of Congress.                 In Direct Action Everywhere San Francisco Bay Area v. Hsiung, Case No. A169536 (1st Dist.,

Scroll to Top