Cases: POOF!

POOF!, Section 1717: Because Plaintiff’s Declaratory Relief Action Was Moot, The Ensuing $165,000 Fee Award Under Section 1717 Went POOF! As A Matter Of Law

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Should Have Dismissed The Case, Not Enter Judgment In Plaintiff’s Favor. In Currency Corp. v. The Pullman Group LLC, Case Nos. B340592 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), a long-running battle involving enforceability of a contract assigning royalties to defendants, the lower court entered a declaratory relief judgment in […]

Homeowner Associations, POOF!: In A Case Involving Two Homeowners, 4/1 DCA’s Majority Opinion Struck An Attorney’s Fees Award Completely Because It Was Premature And Plaintiff Was Not The Prevailing Party

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: POOF!

Dissent Disagreed, Wanting To Remand The Matter For Determining A Reasonable Fee Award–$138,875 In Fees Went POOF! Based On The Majority Opinion. In an interesting 2-1 decision, the 4/1 DCA in Senseman v. Mimi Real Properties, Case No. D084658 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished) affirmed a merits determination but struck a $138,875

Costs, Deadlines, POOF!: Although Plaintiff Won On The Merits, Substantial Fee Recovery and Routine Costs Recovery Were Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: POOF!

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 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished)

Costs, POOF!, Section 1717: Law Firm’s Attorney’s Fees Award Against Plaintiff Reversed As A Matter Of Law Based On Trope Prohibition

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

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 July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is that plaintiff brought a legal malpractice suit against two individual attorneys and their law firm, although plaintiff was non-suited

POOF!, Section 998: Make Sure Your 998 Offers Are Not Ambiguous And Only Targeted For Claim In the Lawsuit, With The Defense Losing A $231,458.30 Award On The Offer

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 998

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

Costs, Employment, POOF!, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Proving Whistleblower Case, But Obtaining No Relief As Employer Proved A “Same-Decision Defense,” Was Erroneously Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under One-Way Whistleblower Statute, Labor Code 1102.5

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

$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

POOF!: Prevailing Plaintiff’s Appeal Of A Fee Denial Stayed Its Second Successful Effort To Have The Court Reconsider And Award Fees Of $4.479 Million, Which Meant The Second Fee Award Was Void

Cases: POOF!

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

Eminent Domain, POOF!: Fee Award Of $13 Million Against Condemnor Went POOF! On Appeal After Merits Reversal And Remand

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

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

Scroll to Top