Cases: Appealability

Appealability: Failure To Appeal Order Denying Motion To Tax Expert Witness Fees Under CCP § 998 And Granting 128.5 Sanctions Over $5,000 Against Multiple Parties Means The Appeal Of Those Orders Had To Be Dismissed

Cases: Appealability

Another Lesson We Have Preached:  Appeal Separate Costs And Sanctions Orders.                In Abelar v. Providence Health System-Southern California, Case No. B321885 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 13, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a medical malpractice case against numerous defendants, with the lower court imposing CCP § 128.5 sanctions of $11,425 against plaintiff’s counsel as to […]

Appealability, Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation: Lower Court’s Grant Of Expert Fee Costs To Defendant And Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defendant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Lack Of Adequate Record Doomed Both Appeals, But They Also Failed On The Merits.                In Paige v. Nolan, Case No. B322162 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 13, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff refused a CCP § 998 offer in a legal malpractice case, with defendant attorney winning.  The lower court did award attorney some expert witness

Appealability, Family Law: Where Family Law Judge Expressly Reserved Findings On Fee Reasonableness For A Later Date, Pendente Lite Fee Order Appeal Dismissed

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

Appellant Can Be Free To Appeal When A Final Order Is Issued.                In Marriage of O’Hill, Case No. G062146 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 1, 2024) (unpublished), a family law judge expressly stated in his order that pendente lite fee orders were subject to reasonableness findings and further revisions at a later date.  The

Appealability, Private Attorney General: Petitioners Obtaining Annulment Of TROs On Indoor Gatherings During COVID Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$433,905 Was The Ask, But Nothing Awarded At Trial Level, Affirmed On Appeal.                Financial incentives and avoidances are always at play in private attorney general fee requests.  Unfortunately, petitioners drew the short end of the stick at both the trial and appellate levels in Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Superior Court (6th Dist. Sept.

Appealability, Arbitration, Employment, Preemption: $176,687.96 Fees And Sanctions Award For Employer’s Failure To Advance Fees Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Preemption

Employers Not Paying Fees Upfront Can Be Exposed To Further Arbitration Expenses Before the Axe Comes Down; Appellate Court Found No FAA Preemption, With This Preemption Issue Now Being Reviewed By The California Supreme Court.                Although unpublished, Costa-Fleeson v. Americor Funding, Inc., Case No. G062962 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 1, 2024) (unpublished) is

Appealability: Failure To Appeal Subsequent Costs Award After Final Merits Judgment Entered Nunc Pro Tunc Earlier Resulted In A Dismissal Of Any Challenge To The Costs Award

Cases: Appealability

Opinion Reminds Practitioners To Separately Appeal Costs And Fee Orders.                In California Spine and Neurosurgery Institute v. Boston Scientific Corp., Case No. H049966 (6th Dist. May 23, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff lost its case, resulting in a final merits judgment which was entered nunc pro tunc earlier and a later adverse costs award of $8,974.12,

Appealability, Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation: Prevailing Party In Appellate Writ Proceeding Was Entitled To Small Routine Costs, But Not Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Appeal Costs Order Was Appealable, But There Was No Fee Entitlement Basis—Estoppel Argument Was Rejected.             In Kaur v. Pabla, Case No. F086273 (5th Dist. May 14, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs obtained an appellate writ mandate order and moved for appellate costs, both routine expenses and attorney’s fees.  In the end, the routine cost of $775

Appealability, SLAPP: Reversal Of Defendant’s SLAPP Motion Vacated Fee Award, But Plaintiff’s Motion For Sanctions Was Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

Everyone Gets To Keeping Litigating!                In Sayarad v. Butler-Lopez, Case No. A166884 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 6, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff suffered a partial grant of a SLAPP motion, resulting in an adverse attorney’s fees award as to one defendant of $42,031.50, and with the lower court denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on

Appealability, SLAPP: Much Diminished Fee Recovery By Three Defendants Prevailing On SLAPP Motions Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

Plaintiff’s Appeal Of The Later Judgment Incorporating Fees Was Appealable, But Lower Court’s $62,500 Fee Award Was No Abuse Of Discretion.                In Norman v. Ross, Case Nos. B316971 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 23, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion not published), three defendants won a SLAPP motion on plaintiff’s claims, while two

Appealability: Plaintiff’s Challenges To Fee Award Were Forfeited Based On Inadequate Record Presentation And Failure To Raise Challenges At Trial Court Level

Cases: Appealability

Two Fundamental Appellate Principles Supported Affirmance Of The Fee Award.                Inadequate record and waiver arguments can really undermine an appellant’s arguments on appeal.  That is what happened in Milks v. Affirmed Technologies, LLC, Case No. B330311 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 8, 2024) (unpublished).  There, plaintiff challenged a contractual fee award after his case

Scroll to Top