The Reason Was That The Lower Court Prejudicially Misallocated The Burden Of Dis-Proof To The Defense. Misallocation of the burden of proof, if not harmless error, can lead to disastrous results. That was the case in Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, 181 F.4th 988 (9th Cir. July 14, 2026) [published]. There, the
Lower Court’s Denial Of Fees To A Prevailing Defendant Had To Be Reassessed Under The Court’s Earlier Hay Opinion Relating to Prevailing Defense CDAFA Fee Recovery Penal Code section 502(e)(2) of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) allows a trial court to discretionarily award attorney’s fees, although there is no prevailing party language. In Hay
That Also Means The Prevailing Party Fee Award To The Defense Fell As A Matter Of Law. Salem v. Aljojo, Case No. B346381 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 27, 2026) (unpublished) involved a situation where a plaintiff sued defendant eldest son for cancellation of a quitclaim deed obtained by fraud. Although the trial court found
$84,600 In Attorney’s Fees Went POOF! With The Merits Reversal. In Meinhardt v. Sunny Acre LLC,Case No. B343467 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 23, 2026) (unpublished), the 2/5 DCA reversed a lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ case and imposition of an $84,600 attorney’s fees award where plaintiffs tardily filed joint pretrial disclosures the day before
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 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), a long-running battle involving enforceability of a contract assigning royalties to defendants, the lower court entered a declaratory relief judgment in
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2-1 decision, the 4/1 DCA in Senseman v. Mimi Real Properties, Case No. D084658 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished) affirmed a merits determination but struck a $138,875
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 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished)
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
