Recent Articles
Arbitration, Section 1717: Where Arbitration Respondent Won A Dismissal Of An Arbitration Award Based On Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Respondent Was Not Entitled To Fees But Was Entitled To Routine Costs
Fee Issues Depended On Further Actions. In O’Leary v. Jones III, Case No. D085327 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 24, 2026) (published), the Court…
Costs, Requests For Admission, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A Complex Water Diversion/Trespass Case, 2/7 DCA Affirms Costs Award To Defendant City, Affirms Denial Of Supplemental Fees And Costs To City Under CCP §§ 1038 & 2033.420, And Reverses Costs Award To Defendant Water Committee Based On Reversing A Judgment In Its Favor
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,…
Probate, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7(b)(1) Sanctions Affirmed Against A Probate Litigant Filing A New Contesting Petition For An Improper Purpose
CCP § 128.7(b)(2) Represented Litigant Exception Did Not Apply To (b)(1) Sanctions, Resulting In An Upholding Of A $25,013 Sanctions Award Against Losing Trustee. In…
Requests for Admission, Sanctions: 1/3 DCA Remands Trial Court’s Denial Of RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions As An Abuse Of Discretion
Estate of Alders, Case No. A171324 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished) examines the diligence required from both litigants and superior courts to…
Arbitration, Celebrities: In A 2-1 Split Opinion, The 2/7 DCA Holds That A Law Firm Prevailing In A MFAA Arbitration Was Not The Prevailing Party For Purposes Of Fees/Costs In That Proceeding Because It Waived The Argument In Front Of A CAA Arbitrator And The Superior Court Could Discretionarily Deny Fees Based On The Arbitrator Determining There Was No Prevailing Party In Arbitration Award Confirmation Proceedings
Dissenting Justice Saw Things Differently: Superior Court Had To Independently Determine MFAA Award Issue Or Remand To The Arbitrator To Decide. Allan Law Group, P.C….
Allocation, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Could Make Allocation Of Fees Between Contract/Tort Claims, But It Erred In Not Allowing Opposing Party To Review/Contest A Supplemental Declaration From The Fee Claimant To Support The Final Fee Award
The Matter Is Remanded To Look At A Restudy Of The Supplemental Declaration. Due process is alive and well in the attorney’s fees area, as…
Private Attorney General: $165,072.50 Attorney’s Fees Award On CEQA Win To Prevailing Litigant Is Affirmed On Appeal
Housing Accountability Act Standards Can Be Factored Into The Equation, With Trade Union Affiliations Not Showing It Made A Difference On The Financial Cost/Benefit Factor….
Sanctions: First District Court Of Appeal Publishes Opinion Informing In Pro Per Litigants That They Cannot Use And Are Subject For Sanctions When Relying On AI Hallucinations
This Case Builds On Cases Applicable To Attorneys, But Extends The Prohibition To In Pro Per Litigants. In Sheerer v. Panas, Case No. A171804 (1st…
Costs, Deadlines, POOF!: Although Plaintiff Won On The Merits, Substantial Fee Recovery and Routine Costs Recovery Were Reversed As A Matter Of Law
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…
Costs, Deadlines, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CHRO Prevailing Party On Modification Request And Appeal Work On Certain Orders Was Entitled To The Lower Court’s Fee Recovery
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…
Appealability, SLAPP: Order Denying or Granting A SLAPP Fees Motion Is Not Appealable
2/7 DCA Decides To Follow Its Prior Opinion in Doe v. Luster. In Clapkin v. Levin, Case No. B340606 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 16,…
Liens For Attorney Fees: Third District Holds That A Single Declaratory Relief Action Against Both The Clients And Competing Attorney Lien Claimant Is A Permissible Way To Enforce Attorney Lien Claims On Settlement Or Judgment Proceeds
Second Attorney Obtaining A Recovery Does Not Have To Wait For Clients’ Former Attorney To Bring A Separate Individual Action Against The Clients. In Jacobs…
Family Law: Marriage of Hoch Opinion Now Published
Case Held That Not Stipulating To Legal Separation On Religious Grounds And Not Particularizing Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Request Led To A Reversal. On…
Common Fund, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Winning Derivative Claim On Behalf Of A Limited Partnership Was Properly Awarded Fees Under Corporations Code Section 15910.05(b) Out Of The Damage Recovery Obtained By The LP Against Defendant
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…
Lis Pendens, Prevailing Party, Probate: Respondents In Probate Dispute Venued In Marin County Won Attorney’s Fees In Successfully Expunging A Lis Pendens And Then Won More Substantial Fees As The Prevailing Parties After Petitioner Voluntarily Dismissed A 850 Petition
Various Statutes Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement In The Probate Case. One of our readers, Ronald Foreman of San Francisco’s Foreman & Brasso, sent us…
Services
About Cal Attorneys Fees
Cal Attorneys Fees is a trusted legal research platform designed for California lawyers to efficiently review case law and access concise abstracts relevant to their ongoing matters. With over 10,000 cited cases and articles, it serves as a comprehensive repository for informed, strategic advocacy.
Contact Us
Have questions or need support? Reach out to the Cal Attorneys Fees team for assistance with case law access, article submissions, or account inquiries — we’re here to help California lawyers work smarter and faster.
-
Arbitration, Section 1717: Where Arbitration Respondent Won A Dismissal Of An Arbitration Award Based On Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Respondent Was Not Entitled To Fees But Was Entitled To Routine Costs
Fee Issues Depended On Further Actions. In O’Leary v. Jones III, Case No. D085327 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 24, 2026) (published), the Court of Appeal confirmed a denial of attorney’s fees to an arbitration respondent, who was never joined in a court action before the matter was ordered to arbitration such that the…
-
Costs, Requests For Admission, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A Complex Water Diversion/Trespass Case, 2/7 DCA Affirms Costs Award To Defendant City, Affirms Denial Of Supplemental Fees And Costs To City Under CCP §§ 1038 & 2033.420, And Reverses Costs Award To Defendant Water Committee Based On Reversing A Judgment In Its Favor
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…
-
Probate, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7(b)(1) Sanctions Affirmed Against A Probate Litigant Filing A New Contesting Petition For An Improper Purpose
CCP § 128.7(b)(2) Represented Litigant Exception Did Not Apply To (b)(1) Sanctions, Resulting In An Upholding Of A $25,013 Sanctions Award Against Losing Trustee. In Gerald C. Fox Foundation v. Fox, Case No. H053043 (6th Dist. Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), CCP § 128.7(b)(1) sanctions were imposed against a trustee who filed a new trust petition…
-
Requests for Admission, Sanctions: 1/3 DCA Remands Trial Court’s Denial Of RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions As An Abuse Of Discretion
Estate of Alders, Case No. A171324 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished) examines the diligence required from both litigants and superior courts to secure costs-of-proof sanctions for unreasonable denial of RFAs under CCP § 2033.420(a). There, a will contest proponent lost, via a summary judgment and trial, all of his claims, with the…
-
Arbitration, Celebrities: In A 2-1 Split Opinion, The 2/7 DCA Holds That A Law Firm Prevailing In A MFAA Arbitration Was Not The Prevailing Party For Purposes Of Fees/Costs In That Proceeding Because It Waived The Argument In Front Of A CAA Arbitrator And The Superior Court Could Discretionarily Deny Fees Based On The Arbitrator Determining There Was No Prevailing Party In Arbitration Award Confirmation Proceedings
Dissenting Justice Saw Things Differently: Superior Court Had To Independently Determine MFAA Award Issue Or Remand To The Arbitrator To Decide. Allan Law Group, P.C. v. Stewart, Case No. B333681 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) involves an interesting intersection between Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) and California Arbitration Act (CAA) principles where…
-
Allocation, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Could Make Allocation Of Fees Between Contract/Tort Claims, But It Erred In Not Allowing Opposing Party To Review/Contest A Supplemental Declaration From The Fee Claimant To Support The Final Fee Award
The Matter Is Remanded To Look At A Restudy Of The Supplemental Declaration. Due process is alive and well in the attorney’s fees area, as Tres Caminos, LP v. MGP XI US Properties LLC, Case No. D085539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) demonstrates. It also shows the broad discretion given to a…