Cases: POOF!

POOF!, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Appellate Court Reversed CDAFA Jury Verdict Against Two Defendants, Prevailing Party Fees To Plaintiff Went POOF! On Appeal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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 […]

POOF!: Where A Trial Court Found A Fraudulent Transfer Of Title, But Erroneously Entered Judgment Against Plaintiff Based On A Statute Of Limitations Defense, Judgment Was Reversed And Entered In Plaintiff’s Favor On Appeal

Cases: POOF!

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 Salem v. Aljojo, Case No. B346381 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 27, 2026) (unpublished) involved a situation where a plaintiff sued defendant eldest son for cancellation of a quitclaim deed obtained by fraud.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

POOF!, Sanctions: Lower Court’s Dismissal Of Case For Late Filing Of Joint Pretrial Documents Under LASC Local Rule Reversed As Disproportionate

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Sanctions

$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 In Meinhardt v. Sunny Acre LLC,Case No. B343467 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 23, 2026) (unpublished), the 2/5 DCA reversed a lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ case and imposition of an $84,600 attorney’s fees award where plaintiffs tardily filed joint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

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 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), a long-running battle involving enforceability of a contract assigning royalties to defendants, the lower court entered a declaratory relief judgment in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

Scroll to Top