Recent Articles
Class Actions, Common Fund, Hourly Rates, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Two N.D. Cal. District Judge Decisions In Google Cases Offer Insights Into Class Action Fee Recovery Where Excessive Hourly Rates Were Claimed And Common Fund Recovery Where Inadequate Fee Substantiation Was Presented
Lessons From These Decisions—Substantiate Fees In Detailed Fashion In California Federal Cases And Do Not Request Excessive Hourly Rates. Two Google cases in the U.S….
Experts, Quantum Meruit: Lower Court’s Exclusion Of Quantum Meruit Expert Testimony For Plaintiff Reversed On Appeal
Factual Issues Were At Issue, With The Lodestar Methodology Being Appropriate To Use As Well As New York Outside Counsel’s Rates With Respect To Gauging…
Sanctions: CCP § 177.5 Sanctions For Violating A Court Order To Attend A Deposition Was Stricken As A Matter Of Law
The Reason Was That The Sanctions Order Was Made Payable To Defendants, Rather Than Properly To The Court. Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 does…
Appealability, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Although Defendants’ Appeal Of An Order Denying Attorney’s Fees After A Voluntary Dismissal Was Accepted, The Request For Prevailing Party Fees Was Premature
That Was The Case Because Plaintiff And Defendants Were Still In Arbitration. This next case had a little bit of everything: appealability, prevailing party, Civil…
Employment, POOF!: $1.691 Million Fee Award Gets Reversed Upon Reversal Of A Merits Determination On A Wage/Hour Statement Merits Judgment
Generally, Fee Award Does Not Stand If A Serious Merits Judgment Reversal Occurs. In Palamino v. Northrup Gruman System Corp., Case Nos. H051676 et al….
Probate: General Equitable Powers Do Not Authorize Fee Recovery To A Trustee Sued In Her Individual Capacity Because Those Fees Would Not Benefit The Trust
Lack Of Statutory Authorization Was Dispositive Based On The Individual Stake For Fee Recovery—Equitable Powers Extended To Protect Trust Interests. McKinley v. Harris, Case No….
Consumer Statutes: Two Song-Beverly Act Fee Rulings On Deadlines And Lodestar Methodology From An Orange County Superior Court Judge Are Instructive
Judge Hesseltine Issued October 1, 2026 Tentative Rulings On Fee Applications. Although we usually post on California appellate opinions, we found that Orange County Superior…
Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $137,184 Attorney’s Fees Award Under Corporations Code Section 1604 Reversed As A Matter Of Law
Prevailing Plaintiff Did Not Bring An Action Or Proceeding Under Sections 1600 Or 1601 Such That Section 1604’s Permissive Fee Statute Did Not Apply. The…
Private Attorney General: $528,094.50 Fee Award To Nonprofit Plaintiff Against City Of Fresno Affirmed On Appeal In Dispute Over Validity of Measure P
However, Portion Of Fee Award Awarded Against Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Was Reversed On Appeal Because It Was Not An “Opposing Party” Under CCP §…
Allocation, Block Billing, Hourly Rates, Lodestar, Trade Secrets: Seattle Federal District Judge Awarded Prevailing Plaintiff Parties In Trade Secrets Act Case About $1.25 Million In Fees And A Little Over $42,000 In Costs
Small Reductions Were Made, And No Allocation Was Required. Under both Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, there are…
POOF!, Trade Secrets: $40 Million Jury Verdict And Over $17 Million Fee Award In Defend Trade Secrets Act Case Went POOF! On Appeal
The Reason Was That The Lower Court Prejudicially Misallocated The Burden Of Dis-Proof To The Defense. Misallocation of the burden of proof, if not harmless…
Civil Rights, Costs: Lower Court’s Entry Of $15,397.96 In Routine Costs Against FEHA Non-Prevailing Plaintiff Had To Be Reversed And Remanded
Lower Court Made No Predicate Finding That The Action Was Frivolous, With Boilerplate Language In Judgment Not Showing Express Findings Were Made To That Effect….
Nonsignatories: Property Manager Did Not Face Fee Exposure Under Contractual Lease Clause Only “Between The Parties”
Matter Goes On Between Landlord And Tenant, Although Tenant Prevailed, Based On A Partial Appellate Reversal. In Wilshire West Medical Tower, LLC v. Karimi, Case…
Special Fee Shifting Statutes (Ordinance): Prevailing Party City Of South Gate’s $99,370.50 Fee Award On A Public Nuisance Cross-Claim Under A First Amended Cross-Complaint Is Affirmed On Appeal
South Gate Did Not Need To Pray For Fees In The Initial Cross-Complaint Not Including A Public Nuisance Cross-Claim—The First Amended Cross-Complaint Was The Trigger,…
Sanctions: 2/1 DCA Agrees With Other Divisions Of The Second District That A CCP § 128.7 Unfiled Sanctions Motion Must Have A Motion Hearing Date To Be Valid
It Acknowledges A Contrary First District Decision, But Agrees With The Result Reached By Other Sister Divisions Of The Second District. In Max v. 8E6…
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.
-
Class Actions, Common Fund, Hourly Rates, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Two N.D. Cal. District Judge Decisions In Google Cases Offer Insights Into Class Action Fee Recovery Where Excessive Hourly Rates Were Claimed And Common Fund Recovery Where Inadequate Fee Substantiation Was Presented
Lessons From These Decisions—Substantiate Fees In Detailed Fashion In California Federal Cases And Do Not Request Excessive Hourly Rates. Two Google cases in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, offer some guidance for class action/common fund practitioners on what to do and not do when requesting a substantial fee recovery in either a…
-
Experts, Quantum Meruit: Lower Court’s Exclusion Of Quantum Meruit Expert Testimony For Plaintiff Reversed On Appeal
Factual Issues Were At Issue, With The Lodestar Methodology Being Appropriate To Use As Well As New York Outside Counsel’s Rates With Respect To Gauging Reasonableness Of In-House Counsel Plaintiff’s Efforts In New York Litigation. Missakian v. Amusement Industry, Inc., Case No. B348390 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 19, 2026) (unpublished) is a case where…
-
Sanctions: CCP § 177.5 Sanctions For Violating A Court Order To Attend A Deposition Was Stricken As A Matter Of Law
The Reason Was That The Sanctions Order Was Made Payable To Defendants, Rather Than Properly To The Court. Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 does allow a court to sanction no more than $1,500 for a knowing violation of a court order, with the sanctions payable to the court. Cammas v. YMCA of the East…
-
Appealability, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Although Defendants’ Appeal Of An Order Denying Attorney’s Fees After A Voluntary Dismissal Was Accepted, The Request For Prevailing Party Fees Was Premature
That Was The Case Because Plaintiff And Defendants Were Still In Arbitration. This next case had a little bit of everything: appealability, prevailing party, Civil Code section 1717, and prematurity issues. In BRHE Group v. Bates, Case No. G065703 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 15, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff sued defendants under a business purchase contract…
-
Employment, POOF!: $1.691 Million Fee Award Gets Reversed Upon Reversal Of A Merits Determination On A Wage/Hour Statement Merits Judgment
Generally, Fee Award Does Not Stand If A Serious Merits Judgment Reversal Occurs. In Palamino v. Northrup Gruman System Corp., Case Nos. H051676 et al. (6th Dist. Oct. 14, 2026) (unpublished), the appellate court was reviewing a wage hour statement sizable award to plaintiff of about $2 million for class damages, $3.16 million for PAGA…
-
Probate: General Equitable Powers Do Not Authorize Fee Recovery To A Trustee Sued In Her Individual Capacity Because Those Fees Would Not Benefit The Trust
Lack Of Statutory Authorization Was Dispositive Based On The Individual Stake For Fee Recovery—Equitable Powers Extended To Protect Trust Interests. McKinley v. Harris, Case No. G066032 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 13, 2026) (published) is of interest to probate practitioners. The basic holding is that general “probate equitable principles” do not allow a trustee to…