Recent Articles
SLAPP: Appellate Court’s Conclusion That A Conspiracy To Defraud Count Had Minimal Merit Meant That No SLAPP Fees Could Be Assessed
. . . . That Despite Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Dismissal Of A Malicious Prosecution Complaint, Because The SLAPP Motion Would Have To Been Denied On The…
Interest, Judgment Enforcement: Interest On Routine Postjudgment Costs Runs From The Date Of The Original Monetary Judgment And Judgment Debtor Discovery Incorporates General CCP Discovery Abuse Provisions With Respect to Awarding Sanctions
Result Was That Interest Ran Much Sooner On Costs Than Judgment Debtor Wanted, And $9,087.50 In Sanctions For Boilerplate Objections To Judgment Debtor Discovery Requests…
ARBITRATION: Another Missed Arbitration Payment Deadline Case Remanded To Consider Hohenshelt Excuses
JAMS May Have Sown Confusion By Extending Payment Deadline, So Excuses Needed Consideration Upon Transfer Of The Opinion From The Cal Supreme Court As we…
Lodestar: Over 75% Plus Haircut In Lodestar Request By A Prevailing Civil Harassment Restraining Order Litigant Drew A Reversal And Remand
Appellate Court Could Not Discern Basis For The Substantial Reduction, So Remanded. In Costa v. Kral, Case No. G065336 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29,…
Reasonableness Of Fees: $256,087 Fee Award To Plaintiffs Affirmed In Memorandum Opinion
Appellant Failed To Observe Many Appellate Rules Of Practice, Such That Affirmance Was In Order. Sarkany v. West, Case No. A174750 (1st Dist., Div. 1…
Appealability: In A Civil Online Harassment Proceeding, Losing Appellant’s Failure To Separately Appeal The Adverse Fee Award Means The Appellate Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Consider Arguments Against It
A Lesson We Have Posted On Many Times Before—Separately Appeal, Protectively. In Boisot v. Logan, Case No. D085234 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 25, 2026)…
SLAPP: Prevailing Parties On ADA Defendant’s Cross-Complaint Against Plaintiff And Her Attorneys Were Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Of $13,000 For Winning A SLAPP Motion Against Cross-Complainant/ADA Defendant
Cross-Complainant’s Failure To Oppose the Fee Request Was Dispositive, With Trial Level Fee Award Affirmed And Remand To Consider Request For Appellate Fees. Anti-SLAPP motions…
Arbitration: Finding No Basis For Vacatur, Appellate Court Affirms $12 Million-Plus Arbitration Award In Employment Case
. . . Inclusive Of A Total Of $957,640.27 In Fees And Costs Award Components. Arbitration awards, even if wrong on the merits, are difficult…
POOF!, Sanctions: Lower Court’s Dismissal Of Case For Late Filing Of Joint Pretrial Documents Under LASC Local Rule Reversed As Disproportionate
$84,600 In Attorney’s Fees Went POOF! With The Merits Reversal. In Meinhardt v. Sunny Acre LLC,Case No. B343467 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 23, 2026)…
Liens For Attorney Fees, Retainer Agreements: Plaintiff’s Failure To Obtain A Valid Fee Division Agreement With Other Law Firm Members, After She Left, Means That The Other Attorneys Faced No Fee Exposure For Disbursing Recovery Funds
The Contractual Attorney’s Lien Was Between Plaintiff And The Client, So No Fiduciary Duty Was Owed By The Other Firm Members To Plaintiffs. In Palmieri…
Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Civil Harassment Petition Dismissed Without Prejudice Did Trigger Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 527.6
$12,500 In Attorney’s Fees Was The Result. In Loew v. Robinson, Case No. B346996 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 22, 2026) (unpublished), a litigant dismissing…
Sanctions: Mississippi District Court Decision Not Only Imposes Monetary Sanctions But Disqualifies Attorneys From The Case And Mandates Reporting To State Bars For Using AI Hallucinations In Court Filings
FRCP 11 Was The Source Of The Sanctions, With Monetary Sanctions Depending On Whether The Conduct Was In Bad Faith Or Merely Careless. We have…
Allocation, Costs, Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party On Appeal: HOA Was The Prevailing Party For Appellate Costs And Fees
. . . But Fees Had To Be Allocated To Only Successful Claims Because Opponent Prevailed On Some Issues. The Colony at Cal. Oaks HOA…
Appealability, SLAPP: 2/7 DCA Again Holds That Order Granting Prevailing Party’s Motion For SLAPP Fees Is Not Appealable
This Follows Its Earlier Conclusion In The Published Clapkin Case. On March 17, 2026, we posted on Clapkin v. Levin, 119 Cal.App.5th 222 (2026), a…
Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Taduran Decision Recently Certified For Publication
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…
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.
-
SLAPP: Appellate Court’s Conclusion That A Conspiracy To Defraud Count Had Minimal Merit Meant That No SLAPP Fees Could Be Assessed
. . . . That Despite Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Dismissal Of A Malicious Prosecution Complaint, Because The SLAPP Motion Would Have To Been Denied On The Merits. In the SLAPP context, a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of an action does not end the inquiry on whether a SLAPP motion would have been granted such that fees could…
-
Interest, Judgment Enforcement: Interest On Routine Postjudgment Costs Runs From The Date Of The Original Monetary Judgment And Judgment Debtor Discovery Incorporates General CCP Discovery Abuse Provisions With Respect to Awarding Sanctions
Result Was That Interest Ran Much Sooner On Costs Than Judgment Debtor Wanted, And $9,087.50 In Sanctions For Boilerplate Objections To Judgment Debtor Discovery Requests Was Affirmed On Appeal Despite Paying Some Postjudgment Costs Earlier. Max v. Shih, Case No. B344402 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 29, 2026) (unpublished) primarily related to a situation where…
-
ARBITRATION: Another Missed Arbitration Payment Deadline Case Remanded To Consider Hohenshelt Excuses
JAMS May Have Sown Confusion By Extending Payment Deadline, So Excuses Needed Consideration Upon Transfer Of The Opinion From The Cal Supreme Court As we have seen in many previous posts, employer missed arbitration payment deadline cases are getting reversed and remanded in the wake of Hohenshelt, 18 Cal.5th at 331, which indicated that defaults…
-
Lodestar: Over 75% Plus Haircut In Lodestar Request By A Prevailing Civil Harassment Restraining Order Litigant Drew A Reversal And Remand
Appellate Court Could Not Discern Basis For The Substantial Reduction, So Remanded. In Costa v. Kral, Case No. G065336 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2026) (unpublished), there was no dispute that a civil harassment restraining order litigant prevailed and was entitled to fees under CCP § 527.6(s). Winning litigant moved for $21,237.50 in prevailing…
-
Reasonableness Of Fees: $256,087 Fee Award To Plaintiffs Affirmed In Memorandum Opinion
Appellant Failed To Observe Many Appellate Rules Of Practice, Such That Affirmance Was In Order. Sarkany v. West, Case No. A174750 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 25, 2026) (unpublished) was a situation where plaintiffs won summary judgment in a fraudulent transfer action to preserve a substantial wrongful eviction judgment against the other side. The lower…
-
Appealability: In A Civil Online Harassment Proceeding, Losing Appellant’s Failure To Separately Appeal The Adverse Fee Award Means The Appellate Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Consider Arguments Against It
A Lesson We Have Posted On Many Times Before—Separately Appeal, Protectively. In Boisot v. Logan, Case No. D085234 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 25, 2026) (unpublished), parties filed dueling requests for restraining orders against each other for online harassment. Respondent’s request was granted, but Appellant’s request was denied. Later, the lower court granted Respondent $32,541.40…