Part 1 of 2—Mike, Marc, and Shanna’s Top 25 Decisions For 2024.
Architectural details of the U.S. Courthouse in Los Angeles, California. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. Between 1980 and 2006. Library of Congress.
As we have done in the past, we post our top 25 decisions—in two parts—for 2024, which brought an influx of fee/costs opinions from the ten we posted on for year-end 2023. We subjectively picked those that were noteworthy in their areas, although there were others which are significant and can be reviewed by a category search on the home page of our website. We would caution that some of the decisions have been accepted for review by the California Supreme Court, which means the review grants must be checked to see if these opinions are citable before the state supreme court issues its opinions on the cases taken up for review. With that said, we now go Part 1 of 2 of our Top 25 decisions for 2024.
25. Contractual Expenses, Reasonableness of Fees, Trade Secret Misappropriation. Applied Medical Distrib. Corp. v. Jarrells (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 556 [4th Dist., Div. 3]: Appellate court reversed lower court’s 75% reduction in fees because plaintiff only prevailed on one out of four claims because that mechanical approach failed to appreciate that work might have been intertwined and further decided that litigation expenses (non-cost) under a contractual “fees, costs, and expenses” provision had to be pled and proven as damages at trial rather than just sought via a costs memorandum.
24. Judgment Enforcement. G.F. Galaxy Corp. v. Johnson (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 542 [4th Dist., Div. 1]: Judgment creditor seeking judgment collection fees under CCP § 685.040 for work in a second fraudulent transfer action did not have to be a “prevailing party” in the second action before seeking post-judgment collection fees in the first action resulting in the underlying judgment.
23. Employment. Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1094 [2d Dist., Div. 8]: Labor Code § 1194(a)’s mandatory fee shifting statute in favor of employees prevails over general CCP § 1033(a) discretionary standard to deny fees/costs to employee where there is limited success. However, reasonableness of fees would be a critical issue on remand, given that plaintiff only recovered $7,659.93 in compensatory damages in an unlimited case (7-week jury trial) and then sought $296,920 in statutory fees which were denied entirely before reversal on appeal.
22. Appealability. Williams v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1117 [5th Dist.]: There is a split in California intermediate appellate authority on treatment of fee awards dependent on a potential future merits reversal. Some hold the appellate court can reverse the fee award without a separate appeal if the merits judgment is reversed, while others hold a fee reversal is dependent on a combined appeal or separate appeals, with the preferred practice to appeal each. After surveying the conflicting decisions, the Fifth District found nothing wrong with a separate fee appeal despite this conflict.
21. Insurance, Brandt Substantiation. Byers v. Superior Court (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1003 [1st Dist., Div. 5] posed this issue and answered it: When a party seeking attorney’s fees as damages under Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 819, does that party impliedly waive the attorney-client privilege with respect to producing fee agreements, invoices, billings, and payment information where the fees are claimed as damages? Answer: generally, yes. However, the opinion needs to be read carefully on this issue, given it is also circumspect in some nuances of the subject matter under consideration. It decided that there is no automatic right of bifurcation of a right of liability versus reasonableness of fees on Brandt issues. Just as important, the appellate court did not disagree that redactions could be made when producing privileged information to the extent non-Brandt fees were at issue.
20. Employment. FEHA Fees For Second Trial Which Was Nullified Partially for Attorney Misconduct. Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 940 [2d Dist., Div. 8]: Reduction of FEHA fee request where a second trial nullified partially based on attorney misconduct, granted through a new trial motion, is a discretionary lower court call and is not “unrelated” to a third trial on identical issues where there was eventual success in the new trial. Lower court properly did reduce the offending attorney’s hourly rate in the fee motion proceeding.
19. Judgment Enforcement. Ofek Rachel, Ltd. v. Cohen (2024) Case No. B333959 [2d Dist., Div. 2]: Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a) allows a person who was a litigant in an underlying lawsuit to be liable for contempt and then ordered to pay judgment creditor’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the separate post-judgment proceeding.
18. Family Law, Judgment Enforcement. Marriage of Shayan (2024) Case No. B323455 [2d Dist., Div. 8]: An attorney’s fees judgment under Family Code section 2030 was not governed by the normal 10-year enforcement period for most monetary judgments, based on Family Code section 291(b), the section’s legislative history, and common sense. 12-year fee judgment could be enforced.
17. Family Law, Special Fee Shifting Statutes—DVRO Proceedings. Dragones v. Calkins (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1075 [2d Dist., Div. 7]: New Family Code section 6344, effective January 1, 2023, retroactively applied to domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) proceedings to prevailing petitioners who do not need to show ability to pay for purposes of obtaining a prevailing party fees award assuming the respondent has the ability to pay.
16. Costs. Garcia Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1075 [4th Dist., Div. 2]: Award of routine costs to defense for noticed, untaken depositions, for obtaining a certificate of nonappearance, for last minute cancellation of a deposition by plaintiff’s attorney, for notice to depose a fact witness who subsequently died, and for service costs associated with depositions is subject to a lower court’s discretionary call on whether they were reasonably necessity to the litigation when incurred, observing that hindsight is not the proper test.
15. Discovery Sanctions. City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 460 [Cal. Supreme Court]: General sections of the Discovery Act allow trial judges to impose sanctions for egregious discovery violations, although notice to be heard/oppose, causation, and reasonableness principles were to be considered as under more specific Discovery Act statutory provisions.
14. Section 1717. Andrade v. Western Riverside Council of Governments (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1020 [4th Dist., Div. 1]: Narrow attorney’s fees clause applying to judicial foreclosure action only was expanded under Civil Code section 1717 to encompass the entire contract because there was no qualifying language that the agreement was negotiated and signed by parties represented by counsel pursuant to a specific section 1717 provision.
13. Civil Rights, Costs, Employment. Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California by the Sea, LLC (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 551 [4th Dist., Div. 3]: Prevailing FEHA defendant cannot solely recover costs through a cost memorandum, with a noticed motion necessary to determine if plaintiff’s case was objectively frivolous for costs entitlement purposes.