Respondent’s Counsel Discounted His Fees; And, While Inability to Pay Is Not A 527.6 Factor, The Lower Court Did Take It Into Account By Allowing The Fee Award Payments To Be Made Over 30 Months. In Naeini v. Leuchter, Case No. B341481 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner lost a civil harassment […]
Acting Presiding Justice Segal Penned The 3-0 Opinion On Various Merits, Costs, And Fee Issues In A 74-Page Opinion. In Beecham v. City of Azusa, Case No. B33843 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), deceased trustee, through a substituted personal presentative, sued two City entities (City), an irrigation company, and a water committee
However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of Costs Was Filed. In litigation which has gone on for a while and generated several appeals, the dust may have finally settled with the appellate court opinion in George v.
Section 15910.05(b) Is Not Displaced By Common Fund/Substantial Benefit Theories, Although Those Theories Also Supported The Fee Award. In Duboff v. Schermer, Case Nos. B343324 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 12, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff won a substantial damages recovery of almost $6 million against defendant in a limited partnership derivative action (where plaintiff
Compared To Other Statutes, Nothing In CCP § 527.6 Requires A Needs Assessment. In States v. MacKrell, Case No. G065683 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 9, 2026) (unpublished), after a lower court awarded $8,397.43 in attorney’s fees and costs for a request to extend a civil harassment restraining order against a litigant, the appellate court
Procedural Challenge Did Not Prevail. In City of El Monte v. Lincoln, Case No. B344087 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 23, 2026) (unpublished), City lost a post-judgment fee order against plaintiff based on losing successive demurrers based on Civil Code section 3496. That section, applying to abatement by a municipality relating to a controlled substance,
Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in
$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
Section 17709.02 Does Not Trump The CCP § 1032 Trial Routine Costs Statute Or The CRC 8.891 Appellate Routine Costs Provision. In Barrios v. Chraghchian, Case No. B341773 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 20, 2026) (published), a defendant brought a bond motion under Corporations Code section 17709.02 to have a derivative lawsuit plaintiff furnish security
Interlocutory Determination Of Entitlement Was Not Binding, With Section 3070 Being Inapplicable With Respect To Fee Recovery. Plaintiff won an apartment complex car towing dispute against some defendants, but she was denied requested attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 3070 in Ramsey v. Moore St. Investments, Inc., Case Nos. D084287 et al. (4th Dist., Div.
