Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Reasonableness Of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Although The Immigration Consultants Act Does Allow For Fee Recovery, The Lower Court Did Not Err In Reducing $40,725 Fee Request Down To $5,885.66

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reductions Fell Within The Deferential Standard Of Review For Fee Requests Under The Record In The Case Where A Fee Request Was Perceived As Excessive. The next case, Immigrants Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Sklar, Case No. B343410 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2026) (unpublished), shows that even though a litigant gets beyond a […]

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Taduran Decision Recently Certified For Publication

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Opinion Affirmed A Negative Multiplier And Rejection Of A Positive Multiplier When Prevailing Employee Challenged The Fee Award As Too Small Under The Abuse Of Discretion Review Standard. In our May 29, 2026 post, we discussed Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G06478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026 filed;

Class Actions, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: $2.274 Million Fee Award To Class Counsel, Where The Case Settled For $575,000, Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiffs Had Asked For About $7.465 Million Inclusive Of A 2.0 Positive Multiplier, With The Appellate Court Rebuffing That Any Further Reduction Was Justified. Defendant reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a class action case in Davis v. AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Case No. B348322 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 1, 2026) (unpublished) for $575,000, although

Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: Probate Court’s Denial Of Successor Trustee’s Request For Attorney’s Fees Properly Denied

Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

The Fee Request Correctly Denied Because Trustee Breached The Trust, Sought To Recover Impermissible Fees Defending Her Removal, And Were Unreasonable In Nature. Estate of Disney, Case No. A171426 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 28, 2026) (unpublished) was a situation where successor trustee of grandmother’s trust was granted trustee’s and attorney’s fees/costs of a substantial

Bankruptcy, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Non-Debtor And Debtor Were Not Subject To The Automatic Stay Where A Non-Debtor Was Involved And Debtor Was The Only Prosecuting The Case With An Adverse Fee Award

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Appellate Court Did Remind Counsel They Need To Notify Courts About Bankruptcy Filings Which Might Implicate Whether The Stay Is In Place. Navellier v. Putnam, Case No. A172077 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 2, 2026 unpublished; published on Feb. 23, 2026; posted on Feb. 24, 2026) [bankruptcy discussion published; fee award entitlement and lodestar analysis

Reasonableness Of Fees: Court Of Appeal Reversed And Remanded A 50% Haircut For Further Explanation Where There Was A Civil Code § 1717 Basis For Fees

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

There Needed To Be More Explanation For The Fee Reduction. Unfortunately, there is no bright-line rule relating to lower court fee “haircuts” at the state court level, although some civil rights decision may suggest there is.  On the federal level, the Moreno from the Ninth Circuitsays that a fee haircut over 10% needs an explanation. 

Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, SLAPP, Substantiation Of Reasonableness of Fees: $50,305 SLAPP Appellate Fee Award To Prevailing Defendants Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Lower Court Reduced The Requested $95,519.88 In Appellate Fees To Almost Half. In Malik v. Carlson & Gevelinger, Case No. C101751 (3d Dist. Feb. 20, 2026) (unpublished), prevailing defendants earlier had been awarded SLAPP trial level fees of $14,960 (out of a requested $37,917.48) against plaintiffs, with the lower court reducing for requested hourly rates

Allocation, Fees On Fees, Homeowner Associations, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Defendant Homeowners Prevailing On Deck/Gazebo Construction Dispute Were Properly Awarded A Total Of $615,118.37 In Fees And Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fees on Fees, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

CC&R And Nuisance Claims Were Intertwined, So No Apportionment Required, And Fee Excessive Claims Were Not Supported By Record Citations. Finley v. Gantz, Case No. D084145 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) reinforces a message we have refrained in the past: homeowner disputes can be expensive for the losing side, which will allow

Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees:  $33,712.91 Fee Award To Prevailing Party Neighbor Was Affirmed In A Complicated Civil Harassment Matter

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

$650 Hourly Rate For 15-Year Attorney And $450 For A Paralegal Were Found Reasonable In A Contentious Santa Clara County Case. Two neighbors had very bad experiences with each other, with one neighbor obtaining a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) and being awarded $33,712.91 in prevailing party attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 against the

Scroll to Top