Cases: Allocation

Allocation, Block Billing, Hourly Rates, Lodestar, Trade Secrets: Seattle Federal District Judge Awarded Prevailing Plaintiff Parties In Trade Secrets Act Case About $1.25 Million In Fees And A Little Over $42,000 In Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Block Billing, Cases: Hourly Rates, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Trade Secrets

Small Reductions Were Made, And No Allocation Was Required. Under both Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, there are attorney’s fees shifting provisions in favor of a prevailing plaintiff proving that the trade secret was willfully and maliciously misappropriated.  These fee entitlements were operative in Silver Fern Chemical, Inc.

Allocation, Section 1717: Where Trial Court Ordered Apportionment, Which Prevailing Parties Could Not Accomplish, 27% Of Requested Fee Award Was The Result

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Parties’ Counsel Passed, But The Lower Court Gave An Opportunity To Allocate—They Could Not, But It Is The Fee Claimants’ Burden Of Proof. The result in Choy v. Ribeiro Development, Inc., Case No. C100831 (3d Dist. Sept. 1, 2026) (unpublished) may at first blush seem harsh, but it is a fee claimant’s burden to justify

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation: Seller Prevailing In Buyer Case To Pay Buyer’s Broker’s Commission Was Denied Attorney’s Fees Based On A Narrow Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Prevailing Seller Failed To Apportion Fees On Defending The Compensable Contract Claim, With No Recovery Allowable Under The Non-compensable Tort Claims. This case reinforces the propriety of apportioning fees on compensable contract claims for a prevailing party; after all, this is what the prevailing party can get—not non-compensable work on tort claims where a narrow

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories: $1,062,813.20 Fee Award In Favor Of Corporate Executives And Directors Is Affirmed On Appeal In Contentious Battle Involving Contracts Between Plaintiff And Banc Of California Executives/Directors

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories

Fee Clause Broadly Encompassed Any Dispute Resulting In Litigation, Executives/Directors Were Fee Clause Nonsignatories Entitled To Fees, And No Apportionment Was Needed Given Breadth Of Fees Clause. In Sugarman v. Benett, Case No. B338610 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 3, 2026) (unpublished), there was contentious, aggressive litigation involving plaintiff and his trust (plaintiff being a

Allocation, Costs, Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party On Appeal:  HOA Was The Prevailing Party For Appellate Costs And Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

. . . But Fees Had To Be Allocated To Only Successful Claims Because Opponent Prevailed On Some Issues. The Colony at Cal. Oaks HOA v. Majestic Asset Mgt., LLC, Case No. D083140 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2026) (unpublished) was an HOA versus certain member dispute involving a golf course.  The case, on

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717:  Attorney’s Fees Award In Favor Of Non-Signatory, Alter Ego Targets Was Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

On Remand, Only Contract Claim Work Could be Awarded, Not On Non-Contract Claims—Lower Court Vested With Discretion To Allocate On Remand. McCain v. Edwards, Case No. C101256 (3d Dist. May 14, 2026) (unpublished) is a very contested case where, eventually, some non-signatory, alter ego targets evaded exposure where the contract between the predicate signatory and

Allocation, Construction: Where Contractor Did Not Prevail On Contractual Provisions But Did Prevail On Prompt Payment Statutes, Lower Court’s Decision To Award Only A Quarter Of Requested Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction

Goes To Show You That Discretionary Calls On Allocation Are Oft Times Affirmed On Appeal. K.G. Mullen, Inc. v. Kirakosian, Case No. B322602 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2026) (unpublished) primarily involved a construction “change order” dispute between a contractor and residential owner over construction of a steel deck at owner’s house.  After a

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

Scroll to Top