Recent Articles
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…
Family Law: Ex-Wife’s Failure To Prevail In Contempt Proceedings Did Not Bar Family Code § 271 Sanctions Awards To Ex-Husband
The Statutes Serves Separate Policy Purposes, Such That They Can Be Concurrently Applied In Dissolution Proceedings. Arora v. Arora, Case No. D086321 (4th Dist., Div….
Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Why Published? Because The Opinion Established That Generic Prevailing Party Statement In A Judgment Does Not Establish Fee Entitlement
That Determination Depends On A Future Fee Motion On Whether Entitlement Is Established—Not So, Ultimately In This Case. In WCST Enterprises, LLC v. Ling, Case…
Trade Secrets: Texas District Court Judge Issues $15.3 Million Attorney’s Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff In A Defend Trade Secrets Act Case
Plaintiff Won Compensatory Damages Of $168.5 Million, With The Merits Judgment Sustained After SCOTUS Refused To Grant A Certiorari Petition. At the federal level, the…
Ethics, Retainer Agreements: New California Ethics Opinion Under Consideration Addresses Whether “Conversion Clauses” In Contingency Agreements Are Ethically Permissible
Unfairly Shackling Client On Key Decisions And Unconscionable Arrangements Likely Will Be Under Scrutiny. Although it has not yet been adopted and remains open for…
Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Where Contextual Reading Of Defense 998 Offer In Lemon Law Case Showed Defense Beat The Ultimate Judgment Based On Offer Terms, Matter Had To Be Remanded To Have Trial Judge Determine Preoffer And Postoffer Costs Due To Each Side
998 Offer Allowed For Costs/Fees to Plaintiff, Such That This Could Not Be “Double Dipped” Added To The Base 998 Offer Amount; Otherwise, Duplication Existed….
Lodestar, Multipliers, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Prevailing Plaintiff Won Substantial Trial And Appellate Victories On The Scope Of Penal Code Section 496(c), Substantial Fee Award Was Affirmed On Appeal With A Minor Remand Issue
Lodestar, Not Contingency Fee Agreement Amount, Governed Work On Section 496(c) Work, Requiring A Remand On That Sole Issue. Siry Investments, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, Case No….
Construction: Where General Contractor And Property Owner Obtained Lower Court Order Clarifying The Impact Of A Mechanic’s Lien Release Bond, The Lower Court Erred In Assessing Attorney’s Fees Of $4,250 Against Subcontractor Lien Claimant
Nothing In The Civil Code Provided Fee Entitlement. In T McGee Electric, Inc. v. FH II Homebuilders, Inc., Case No. D088372 (4th Dist., Div. 1…
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.
-
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 next case we post on counsels that if you are seeking attorney’s fees under a statute, you must often bring an action or a proceeding under that specific statute under…
-
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 § 1021.5, Meaning City Bore All Of The Fee Exposure. In Fresno Building Healthy Communities v. City of Fresno, Case Nos. F090084 et al. (5th Dist. Oct. 8, 2026) (unpublished), a…
-
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 attorney’s fees shifting provisions in favor of a prevailing plaintiff proving that the trade secret was willfully and maliciously misappropriated. These fee entitlements were operative in Silver Fern Chemical, Inc.…
-
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 error, can lead to disastrous results. That was the case in Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, 181 F.4th 988 (9th Cir. July 14, 2026) [published]. There, the…
-
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. San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries, LLC, Case No. A175977 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 2, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where a FEHA non-prevailing plaintiff lost a summary judgment motion…
-
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 Nos. B347841 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2026) (unpublished), tenants defensed a landlord and property manager, even though the appellate court reversed on some grounds. The lower…