Reversal Resulted In A Reinstatement Of A $75,000 Fee Award To Ex-Wife. Although new trial motion grants in California are usually governed by an abuse of discretion standard, that changes where no statement of reasons is issued: in that situation, the party seeking to uphold the order bears the burden of persuasion and review of the […]
Costs Against Plaintiff Also Narrowed To Law Firm’s Work On An IIED Claim. What happened in Martin v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Case Nos. H050803 et al. (6th Dist. July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is that plaintiff brought a legal malpractice suit against two individual attorneys and their law firm, although plaintiff was non-suited
If You Include Language Like “Or Could Have Been Brought,” This Might Well Be Invalidating For An Offer—Drafting Tip to All! Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Enchante Accessories, Inc., Case No. B337902 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is an excellent reminder of how to structure CCP § 998 offers with releases
$400,000 Fee Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law, With County Entitled To Routine Costs As The Prevailing Party Below. In a “mixed-motive” whistleblower case, plaintiff proved the elements of his whistleblower claim, but he obtained no relief because defendant employer proved the “same-decision defense.” The lower court in Lampkin v. County of Los
Remand Was Required Because Appellate Court Reversed SLAPP Grant On Three Out Of Six Cross-Claims. City of San Jose v. Gradetech, Inc., Case No. H051462 (6th Dist. June 17, 2025) (unpublished) is a situation where a cross-defendant successfully SLAPPed a cross-complaint with six causes of action brought by the City and where the lower
CCP § 916 Appellate Stay Was The Key, Meaning the Large, Subsequent Fee Award Went POOF! Although this may sound technical, the result in CDC San Francisco, LLC v. Critchfield Mechanical, Inc., Case No. A169224 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2025) (unpublished) shows how taking an appeal will stay subsequent efforts to obtain
Dispute Involved Town Of Apple Valley’s Effort To Obtain A Private Water System Through Condemnation. Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water, Case No. E078348 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 15, 2025) (published) involved a more than 2-year battle in which Town of Apple Valley (TAV) attempted to acquire a private water
Landlord Accepted Rent Check After Notice To Vacate, Such That A Month-To-Month Tenancy Was Reinstated. In Baca v. Kuang, Case No. A171071 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 13, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), defendant tenant appealed from an unlawful detainer judgment, consisting of $51,560 in contractual attorney’s fees and $24,000 in holdover rent.
Results Is That $533,086.19 Fee Award Went POOF! On Appeal. The next case is a continuation of a case we earlier posted on, Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 556, discussed in our March 11, 2024 post. There, plaintiff obtained preliminary and then later permanent injunctions against defendant in a trade
Plaintiffs’ Reasons To Not Reverse The Award Were Unpersuasive. Acting Presiding Justice Segal, author on behalf of the 2/7 DCA in Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., Case No. B318867 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 19, 2024), confronted a very spirited opposition by plaintiffs/class winning substantial fees for why the reviewing court should not
