Cases: Prevailing Party

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Why Published? Because The Opinion Established That Generic Prevailing Party Statement In A Judgment Does Not Establish Fee Entitlement

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

That Determination Depends On A Future Fee Motion On Whether Entitlement Is Established—Not So, Ultimately In This Case. In WCST Enterprises, LLC v. Ling, Case No. G065236 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 28, 2026) (published), the dispute involved neighbors quarreling over the rights to a parking space in a condominium complex—but essentially was a quiet

Lodestar, Multipliers, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Prevailing Plaintiff Won Substantial Trial And Appellate Victories On The Scope Of Penal Code Section 496(c), Substantial Fee Award Was Affirmed On Appeal With A Minor Remand Issue

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lodestar, Not Contingency Fee Agreement Amount, Governed Work On Section 496(c) Work, Requiring A Remand On That Sole Issue. Siry Investments, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, Case No. B340681 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 23, 2026) (unpublished) involved a long-ranging dispute between the parties with respect to the scope of relief and attorney’s fees allowed under Penal Code

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Petitioner Physician Failing To Prevail On Peer Review Suspension Proceedings Under Business And Professions Code Section 809.9 Properly Was Assessed With Non-Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees As Against Defendants

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Did Give Rise To Fee Exposure, Because the Petition Was Frivolous In Nature. In the last few days, we have posted on Business and Professions Code section 809.9, which allows fees to a substantially prevailing party in a peer review suspension of privileges proceeding where the plaintiff’s conduct was frivolous,

Choice of Law, Prevailing Party: Where Plaintiffs Dismissed Contractual Claims, A Defendant Was Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees In The Suit, Excluding Prior SLAPP Fee Recovery, Because Defendant Forfeited The Claim That New York Law Applied By Using California Law At Important Junctures Of The Litigation

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Prevailing Party

Defendant’s Fee Request Was For Around $3.215 Million. Although this litigation was fierce, with defense parties winning SLAPP fees and contractual fees under California law, one defendant who never raised a conflict of law issue in previous crucial junctures was not allowed a substantial attorney’s fees recovery because it never argued clearly before the fee

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To CLRA Settling Plaintiff Reversed And Remanded To See If Plaintiff Achieved His Litigation Objectives In Settling An Alleged Mislabeling Tequila Ingredient Case

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

A Final Determination On The Merits Was Not Required In CLRA Cases, Unlike Unruh Or Disabled Persons Act Matters. In Garcia v. SouthNorte Spirits LLC, Case No. B345897 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 21, 2026) (unpublished), a plaintiff bringing a Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) case for tequila ingredient mislabeling reached a settlement for $2,500

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $379,280.25 Prevailing Party Award Under A Contractual Fees Clause Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

. . . However, A Costs Item For Models And Exhibit Photocopies Was Stricken On Appeal, Because Costs Relating To A Demurrer Hearing Are Not Recoverable Because Costs Statute Only Applies To Trier Of Fact Stages Of The Litigation. Marosi v. TriCo Bancoshares, Case No. H051989 et al. (6th Dist. July 20, 2026) (unpublished) is

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: District Prevailing In Percentage Lease Dispute Under Contractual Leases Was Properly Awarded $137,400 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Contractual Ambiguity Challenges Did Not Resonate, Because Not Raised Below. In Ventura Harbor Restaurant Associates, Inc. v. Ventura Port Dist., Case No. B344145 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 9, 2026) (certified for publication, after being filed on June 15, 2026 as an unpublished opinion), the appellate court affirmed a $137,400 contractual attorney’s fees award under

Allocation, Costs, Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party On Appeal:  HOA Was The Prevailing Party For Appellate Costs And Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

. . . But Fees Had To Be Allocated To Only Successful Claims Because Opponent Prevailed On Some Issues. The Colony at Cal. Oaks HOA v. Majestic Asset Mgt., LLC, Case No. D083140 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2026) (unpublished) was an HOA versus certain member dispute involving a golf course.  The case, on

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Sisters Escaping Liability To County/Receiver In State Housing Law Abatement Receivership Were Entitled To Fees Under Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7(c)(11)—They Were Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

More Generalized H&S Code Section 17984 Did Not Trump More Specific, Recently Enacted Statute, With Sisters Being The Parties Obtaining Their Specific Litigation Objectives Although The County Did Somewhat Prevail On More Tangential Issues. In County of Del Norte v. Britt, Case No. A173145 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion

Appealability, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Because Order Taking A Civil Harassment Petition Off Calendar Was Not An Appealable Order, Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defense Had To Be Remanded To See If There Was A Prevailing Party

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Whether A Prevailing Party Even Exists Should Be Determined By The Lower Court, But The Fee Motion Was Timely. In Raheb v. Williamson, Case No. B343023 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 4, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner sought to obtain a temporary restraining order against defendant, a condominium community fellow resident.  This request was denied pending a

Scroll to Top