Cases: Appealability

Appealability, SLAPP: 2/7 DCA Again Holds That Order Granting Prevailing Party’s Motion For SLAPP Fees Is Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

This Follows Its Earlier Conclusion In The Published Clapkin Case. On March 17, 2026, we posted on Clapkin v. Levin, 119 Cal.App.5th 222 (2026), a 2/7 DCA opinion where the appellate court determined that an order denying a SLAPP fee motion is not appealable.  The same Division followed that reasoning in Moussazadeh v. Integrative Surgical […]

Appealability, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Because Order Taking A Civil Harassment Petition Off Calendar Was Not An Appealable Order, Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defense Had To Be Remanded To See If There Was A Prevailing Party

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Whether A Prevailing Party Even Exists Should Be Determined By The Lower Court, But The Fee Motion Was Timely. In Raheb v. Williamson, Case No. B343023 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 4, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner sought to obtain a temporary restraining order against defendant, a condominium community fellow resident.  This request was denied pending a

Appealability, Costs: Plaintiffs Previously Dismissing A Case Voluntarily Cannot Attempt To Resurrect Arguments Relating To Prior Nonappealable Orders Through A Subsequent Partially Denied Routine Costs Order

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs

The Costs Order Under Review Was Not Final. This post likely will be of interest to appellate attorneys on appealability issues, but it may guide trial level litigation counsel on what type of routine costs orders will be considered as appealable. In Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc., Case No. C102857 (3d Dist. Jan. 28,

Appealability, Class Actions: Order Denying A Plaintiff’s Request To Be Exempt From Coordinated Proceeding Common Benefit Surcharge By Other Attorneys Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Class Actions

Appellate Court Determines It Is Appealable Under The Collateral Order Doctrine, But Appellant Still Loses On The Merits. In Pruchnik v. JCCP464 Common Benefit Comm., Case No. B330338 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 17, 2025) (published), plaintiff, in a coordinated proceeding involving Toyota unintended acceleration cases with relates issues, settled his case but brought a

Appealability, Probate, Sanctions: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Attorney Fee and Sanctions Orders, But The 2/1 DCA Reversed Them On Appeal When Plaintiff Appealed Trial Court’s Denial Of His Motion To Vacate

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

Defendant Lacked Standing For The Initial Fee Motion It Brought – Nullifying The Order Granting The Motion And Each Subsequent Order Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Comply With Void Initial Fee Order After being fired by Plaintiff trustee, Defendant law firm successfully brought a motion for fees under Probate Code § 17200. When trustee failed

Appealability: Defendant Hit With Wage/Hour Attorney’s Fees Could Not Challenge The Award Because It Failed To Independently Appeal The Postjudgment Fee Order

Cases: Appealability

The Notice Of Appeal Only Attached The Merits Judgment, Which No Mention Of Fees.                Myers v. Quality Care Home, Inc., Case No. C101659 (3d Dist. Aug. 20, 2025) (unpublished) involved a situation we have seen many times.  Defendant was hit with a $78,000 wage/hour fee award after a more minor unpaid wage judgment was

Appealability, Family Law: Denial Of 2030 Request For Fees, Pendency On Appeal, Could Not Result In A Subsequent Request Involving The Same Facts

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

The First Fee Award Appeal Divested Appellate Court Of Jurisdiction On Second Award.                Weaklend v. Weaklend, Case Nos. D086167 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2025) (unpublished) confirms that an appellate court is divested of jurisdiction from considering an appeal of a subsequent Family Code section 2030 fee award where the same

Appealability, Sanctions: Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Trial Court’s Order Adopting Discovery Referee’s Recommendation On Apportionment Of Fees Claiming Apportionment Equated To Monetary Sanctions Exceeding $5,000

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

4/3 DCA Dismissed The Appeal As The Trial Court’s Interlocutory Order On The Discovery Referee Fees Was Not A Sanctions Order, Did Not Use The Word Sanctions, And Did Not Cite Authority To Impose Sanctions.             The parties in Glickman v. Krolikowski, Case No. G064853 (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 7, 2025) (published), stipulated to

Appealability, SLAPP: Defense Appeal Of Fee Award After SLAPP Merits Decided, Claiming More Fees Should Have Been Awarded, Was From A Non-appealable, Interlocutory Order

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

Appeal Was Dismissed.                The defense in Ali v. Dignity Health, Case No. B331058 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 31, 2024) (unpublished) won some aspects of a SLAPP motion and was granted some mandatory fees, but the defense appealed and claimed that the SLAPP motion should have been granted in entirety and more fees awarded. 

Scroll to Top