Recent Articles
SLAPP: Where SLAPP Defendant Groups Were Granted Reduced Fees, Plaintiff’s Appeal About The Lower Amounts Awarded Did Not Resonate On Appeal
Lower Court Even Applied Discounted Hourly Rates Stipulated To By Defense Counsel–No Abuse of Discretion Demonstrated. In Qassimyar v. Ortega, Case No. D084317 (4th Dist.,…
Allocation, Probate, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where There Were Dueling Probate Petitions For Financial Elder Abuse Claims, The Prevailing Petitioner—Even Though A Cross-Respondent Defensing The Unsuccessful Elder Abuse Petition—Was Entitled To Intertwined Fee Work For Prevailing As A Petitioner And Defending As A Cross-Respondent
Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature…
Family Law, Sanctions: Family Law Section 271 Sanctions Of $35,000 Reversed Against Ex-Husband Because . . . .
His Failure To Stipulate Did Not Show Bad Faith Under The Circumstances And The Awarded Sanctions Were Not Tethered To Any Specific Conduct. Family Code…
Costs, Section 998: Because Defense 998 Offer Was Valid And It Defensed The Plaintiff, Routine Costs Were Allowable But Had To Be Further Reduced
After The Lower Court Erred In Not Taxing Some Routine Costs, Especially Some Conceded By The Defense As Being Erroneous, The Costs Judgment Had To…
Deadlines, Family Law: Appellate Fees Properly Denied As Untimely And Marital Settlement Agreement Fees Denied To Ex-Wife, But Needs-Based Fees Had To Be Revisited
Lack Of Family Code Section 2030 Findings Constituted An Abuse Of Discretion. In Marriage of Tran and Ha, Case No. G064047 (4th Dist., Div. 3…
Deadlines: Motion For Attorney’s Fees Was Untimely Because It Was Served More Than 180 Days After A Dismissal
4/1 DCA Clarifies Rules For Fee Motion Filing/Service Deadline Where There Is A Dismissal Based On An Unconditional Settlement In Tandem With A Court Notice….
Arbitration: Another Post-Hohenshelt Reversal For The Defense Arguably Not Paying One Invoice On Time
Although Remanded, Facts Suggested A Possible Delay Because Of A Calamity Evacuation By Defense Counsel. As we have said before, the CCP § 1281.98 defense…
SLAPP: Prevailing Defendants Properly Awarded SLAPP Fees Of $53,000, About Half Of The Requested Amount
Procedural And Excessiveness Challenges Not Successful On Appeal. Litigants and practitioners are reminded that mandatory SLAPP fees, if granted to a true prevailing defendant, are…
Discovery: $20,000 Discovery Sanctions For Litigant’s Failure To Meet And Confer On Third Party Subpoena Is Affirmed On Appeal
Substantial Evidence Supported The Result, Not To Mention A $35,000 Reduction In Requested Fees Showed No Arbitrary Result. Discovery disputes are contentious, and lower courts…
Deadlines: Failure Of Losing Plaintiff to File A Motion To Tax Trial And Appellate Costs Waived Challenges To Routine Costs Entered By The Clerk
Lower Court Implicitly Extended The Deadline When Plaintiff’s Attorney Indicated Not Receiving The Trial Cost Memorandum (Which Was Cured), With Plaintiff Also Not Showing The…
Section 1717: Where Plaintiff Pled Claims Based On Operating Agreements With Contractual Fee Clauses, It Did Not Matter If They Had Tort Origins
The Dismissed Claims Were “On The Contract” Under Civil Code Section 1717. We think that sometimes litigants and practitioners do not appreciate that Civil Code…
SLAPP: Appellant’s Reversal Of Entire SLAPP Grant Meant That Attorney’s Fees Award Had To Be Revisited Against Previously Prevailing Defendants
Unsuccessful Claim Work, Impact On Future Litigation, Issues Remaining To Be Litigated, And Whether Defendants Remain The Prevailing Parties Based On SLAPP Denial As To…
Allocation, Fees On Fees, Homeowner Associations, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Defendant Homeowners Prevailing On Deck/Gazebo Construction Dispute Were Properly Awarded A Total Of $615,118.37 In Fees And Costs
CC&R And Nuisance Claims Were Intertwined, So No Apportionment Required, And Fee Excessive Claims Were Not Supported By Record Citations. Finley v. Gantz, Case No….
Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Where A Broad Contractual Fees Clause Governed Any Dispute Between The Parties, Fees For Prevailing On A Successful Forum Selection Motion in California Gave Rise To Fees Under CCP §§ 1021, 1032, And 1033.5
Section 1717 Did Not Give Rise To Fees Based Upon DisputeSuite Opinion. This opinion highlights the importance of wording in a fees clause. Broader language,…
Employment: Employers Requiring Repayment, Collection, Or Penalties Tethered To Employment Termination Can Be Sued, With Liquidated Penalties And Reasonable Attorney’s Fees Assessed Against Violating Employers
There Are Some Specified Exclusions. Assembly Bill No. 692, adding Business and Professions Code section 16608 and Labor Code section 926 to the statutory law…
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: Where SLAPP Defendant Groups Were Granted Reduced Fees, Plaintiff’s Appeal About The Lower Amounts Awarded Did Not Resonate On Appeal
Lower Court Even Applied Discounted Hourly Rates Stipulated To By Defense Counsel–No Abuse of Discretion Demonstrated. In Qassimyar v. Ortega, Case No. D084317 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 19, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion brought by two sets of defendants. The merits determination was affirmed on appeal, but plaintiff also contested mandatory fee…
-
Allocation, Probate, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where There Were Dueling Probate Petitions For Financial Elder Abuse Claims, The Prevailing Petitioner—Even Though A Cross-Respondent Defensing The Unsuccessful Elder Abuse Petition—Was Entitled To Intertwined Fee Work For Prevailing As A Petitioner And Defending As A Cross-Respondent
Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in…
-
Family Law, Sanctions: Family Law Section 271 Sanctions Of $35,000 Reversed Against Ex-Husband Because . . . .
His Failure To Stipulate Did Not Show Bad Faith Under The Circumstances And The Awarded Sanctions Were Not Tethered To Any Specific Conduct. Family Code section 271 does allow for monetary “sanctions” against a family law litigant who tries to not foster resolution and makes the proceedings more expensive. However, they are not a general…
-
Costs, Section 998: Because Defense 998 Offer Was Valid And It Defensed The Plaintiff, Routine Costs Were Allowable But Had To Be Further Reduced
After The Lower Court Erred In Not Taxing Some Routine Costs, Especially Some Conceded By The Defense As Being Erroneous, The Costs Judgment Had To Be Modified On Appeal. Reyes-Gonzalez v. Color Marble, Inc., Case No. B350612 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished) involved a case where plaintiff was “defensed” by the defendant,…
-
Deadlines, Family Law: Appellate Fees Properly Denied As Untimely And Marital Settlement Agreement Fees Denied To Ex-Wife, But Needs-Based Fees Had To Be Revisited
Lack Of Family Code Section 2030 Findings Constituted An Abuse Of Discretion. In Marriage of Tran and Ha, Case No. G064047 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife’s requests for two sets of fees (which were denied) did not result in a relook on appeal, but her request for non-appellate, needs-based fees had…
-
Deadlines: Motion For Attorney’s Fees Was Untimely Because It Was Served More Than 180 Days After A Dismissal
4/1 DCA Clarifies Rules For Fee Motion Filing/Service Deadline Where There Is A Dismissal Based On An Unconditional Settlement In Tandem With A Court Notice. Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC, Case No. D084360 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 17, 2026) (published) is an opinion which is must reading for litigants and practitioners with respect to…