Recent Articles
Judgment Enforcement: Lower Court’s Denial Of Post-Judgment Attorney’s Fees Was Legally Incorrect Based On The Filing Of A Costs Memorandum Rather Than A Noticed Motion
Because A Statutory Basis Allowed For Attorney’s Fees Recovery, Denial Based On A Lack Of A Contractual Basis For Fees Substantively Was Erroneous Where A…
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
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….
Prevailing Party, Section 1717: District Prevailing In Percentage Lease Dispute Under Contractual Leases Was Properly Awarded $137,400 In Attorney’s Fees
Contractual Ambiguity Challenges Did Not Resonate, Because Not Raised Below. In Ventura Harbor Restaurant Associates, Inc. v. Ventura Port Dist., Case No. B344145 (2d Dist.,…
Family Law: Family Code Section 271 Monetary Sanctions Cannot Be Imposed On Litigant’s Attorney
Reversal As A Matter Of Law Was The Result. Ex-husband’s attorney in Forrest v. Forrest, Case No. D086281 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 8, 2026)…
Discovery, Ethics, Sanctions: In Pro Per Litigant Not Automatically Disqualified As Far As Seeking $1,000 In Monetary Sanctions From Defense For Failing To Produce Document Responses Under CCP § 2023.050
Litigant Did Not Need To Show Expenses Were Actually Incurred, Plus The Appellate Court Reminds Us That Civility Applies To Both Self-Represented And Represented Litigants….
Lodestar, Sanctions: CCP § 128.5 Sanctions, With A Small Reduction, Were Affirmed Against The Defense Where A Mistrial Motion Was Granted Based On Violating The Parties’ Trial Stipulation On An Evidentiary Issue
The One Reduction Related To A Duplication Argument Not Supportable. In Rodriguez v. Paramount Convalescent Group, Inc., Case No. B344443 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July…
Off Topics: Contributor Marc Alexander Has Article On Birthright Citizenship SCOTUS Decision Published In The July 7, 2026 Daily Journal
Article Explores The Recent Trump v. Barbara Opinion Reaffirming The Principle. Contributor Marc Alexander has a published article in the July 7, 2026 Daily Journal…
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…
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.
-
Judgment Enforcement: Lower Court’s Denial Of Post-Judgment Attorney’s Fees Was Legally Incorrect Based On The Filing Of A Costs Memorandum Rather Than A Noticed Motion
Because A Statutory Basis Allowed For Attorney’s Fees Recovery, Denial Based On A Lack Of A Contractual Basis For Fees Substantively Was Erroneous Where A Costs Memorandum Filing Allowed For Fee Recovery. In Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Sklar, Case No. B345528 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2026) (unpublished), somewhat of a follow-up…
-
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
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…
-
Prevailing Party, Section 1717: District Prevailing In Percentage Lease Dispute Under Contractual Leases Was Properly Awarded $137,400 In Attorney’s Fees
Contractual Ambiguity Challenges Did Not Resonate, Because Not Raised Below. In Ventura Harbor Restaurant Associates, Inc. v. Ventura Port Dist., Case No. B344145 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 9, 2026) (certified for publication, after being filed on June 15, 2026 as an unpublished opinion), the appellate court affirmed a $137,400 contractual attorney’s fees award under…
-
Family Law: Family Code Section 271 Monetary Sanctions Cannot Be Imposed On Litigant’s Attorney
Reversal As A Matter Of Law Was The Result. Ex-husband’s attorney in Forrest v. Forrest, Case No. D086281 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 8, 2026) (unpublished) had a $5,000 monetary sanction imposed for certain conduct in a marital dissolution case, exclusively assessed under Family Code section 271. That sanction order was reversed as a matter…
-
Discovery, Ethics, Sanctions: In Pro Per Litigant Not Automatically Disqualified As Far As Seeking $1,000 In Monetary Sanctions From Defense For Failing To Produce Document Responses Under CCP § 2023.050
Litigant Did Not Need To Show Expenses Were Actually Incurred, Plus The Appellate Court Reminds Us That Civility Applies To Both Self-Represented And Represented Litigants. In Damak v. Superior Court, Case No. G065583 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2026) (published), a self-represented litigant (plaintiff) filed a motion to compel when the defense did not…
-
Lodestar, Sanctions: CCP § 128.5 Sanctions, With A Small Reduction, Were Affirmed Against The Defense Where A Mistrial Motion Was Granted Based On Violating The Parties’ Trial Stipulation On An Evidentiary Issue
The One Reduction Related To A Duplication Argument Not Supportable. In Rodriguez v. Paramount Convalescent Group, Inc., Case No. B344443 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 6, 2026) (unpublished), a trial court awarded $81,536.13 in attorney’s fees and costs under CCP § 128.5 against the defense and in favor of plaintiff where the defense violated the…