No Exception Applied To Family Matters, With The Family Law Court Not Expressly Reserving The Matter For Later Junctures. In In re Marriage of A.O. and Vologodskaya, Case No. A176388 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 28, 2026) (published), the issue on appeal was whether CRC 3.1702 deadlines applied to a prevailing party as far as
Although A Validation Action Is Involved, The Broader Reasoning Gives Some Extension Days Past A Jurisdictional Appeal Deadline For Civil Appeals In General. Alameda County Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. City of Oakland, Case No. A172609 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 28, 2026) (partially published, on timeliness of fee motion) involved a real party in interest
The Costs Memo Filing 10 Days Past The 15-Day Deadline Was No Problem, Given That The 15-Day Deadline Did Not Start To Accrue. What caught our eye in Amirtalesh v. Beverly Hills Properties, LLC, Case Nos. B339300 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 28, 2026) (unpublished) was the discussion on whether prevailing SLAPP defendants
Fees Were Not Allowable Without A Fees Motion; Costs Were Not Allowable Because Failure To Use Judicial Council Worksheet Gave No Basis For A Conclusion On Whether The Costs Were Reasonable, In Response To Defendant’s Motion To Tax Costs. Pelloni v. Mirshahi, Case Nos. B336950 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished)
However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of Costs Was Filed. In litigation which has gone on for a while and generated several appeals, the dust may have finally settled with the appellate court opinion in George v.
Lack Of Family Code Section 2030 Findings Constituted An Abuse Of Discretion. In Marriage of Tran and Ha, Case No. G064047 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife’s requests for two sets of fees (which were denied) did not result in a relook on appeal, but her request for non-appellate, needs-based fees had
4/1 DCA Clarifies Rules For Fee Motion Filing/Service Deadline Where There Is A Dismissal Based On An Unconditional Settlement In Tandem With A Court Notice. Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC, Case No. D084360 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 17, 2026) (published) is an opinion which is must reading for litigants and practitioners with respect to
Lower Court Implicitly Extended The Deadline When Plaintiff’s Attorney Indicated Not Receiving The Trial Cost Memorandum (Which Was Cured), With Plaintiff Also Not Showing The Allowed Costs Were Improper—No Reversible Error. In Kirk v. Quirino, Case No. B340782 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 11, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a car accident case, with the lower
Payment By Appellant Did Not Waive Appeal Rights; Trial Court Implicitly Extended Fee Motion Filing Deadline Due To Docketing Issues. In Skytte v. Skytte, Case No. G064930 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished), a probate dispute among certain family members may be approaching a close after an award of appellate attorney’s fees of
Fee Request Was Reduced, But Lower Court Found That Prevailing Party’s Subsequent Counsel’s Withdrawal Of A Prior Timely Fee Motion Allowed Former Counsel A Reason To Still Have It Heard In The Lower Court’s Discretion. In Vista Land, LLC v. Robinson, Case No. B331975 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2025) (unpublished), defendants were
