Cases: Appealability

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 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2025) (unpublished) confirms that an appellate court is divested of jurisdiction from considering an appeal of a subsequent Family Code section 2030 fee award where the same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                The defense in Ali v. Dignity Health, Case No. B331058 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 31, 2024) (unpublished) won some aspects of a SLAPP motion and was granted some mandatory fees, but the defense appealed and claimed that the SLAPP motion should have been granted in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. 

Appealability, Insurance: Lower Court Did Not Error By Awarding $2,718 In Brandt Attorney’s Fees In A Contingency Case Based On The Cassim Formula

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Insurance

Lodestar Analysis Does Not Apply In A Brandt Contingency Case Situation.                Under Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985), a jury or lower court (via a posttrial stipulation for the court) can award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff as damages in an insurance case limited to the time spent to recover the

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,

Scroll to Top