Year In Review - 2022

Year End-Wrap Up By Mike, Marc, And Shanna For Our Top 20 Decisions In 2022—Part 1 of 2.

Courtroom One, James R. Browning U.S. Court of Appeals Building, San Francisco, California.  Carol M. Highsmith, photographer.  2009.  Library of Congress.

            As we have done over the years, this blog provides its top 20 attorney’s fees/costs decisions for 2022, again emphasizing that there were many other decisions of consequence over the year.  However, these were our favorites and with the order of the opinions not indicating their importance.  Co-contributors Mike and Marc would like to thank Shanna Strader for her contributions over the last year, because she did great posts and was invaluable to keeping the calattorneysfees.com blog up to date.  With that said, here is Part 1 of 2 of our Top 20 Decisions for 2022.

20.    PREVAILING PARTY/SECTION 1717/TRADE SECRETS. Blue Mountain Enterprises, LLC v. Owen, 74 Cal.App.5^th 537 (Cal. App. 1^st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 28, 2022 published)—authored by Justice Sanchez, discussed in our Jan. 29, 2022 post--$596,114 under a contractual fee recovery order sustained in invalid non-solicitation case where contractual fees clause involved, because plaintiff obtained injunctive relief so as to be the prevailing party given this was a prime objective of the litigation from plaintiff’s side.

19.    CIVIL RIGHTS. Vines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, 75 Cal.App.5^th 174 (Cal. App. 2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 21, 2022)—authored by Presiding Justice Perluss, discussed in our Jan. 21, 2022 post—FEHA fee recovery to plaintiff was reversed because the limited success analysis of the lower court was too jaded on the value of unsuccessful work to the detriment of the claiming plaintiff.

18.    COSTS. Segal v. ASICS American Corp., 12 Cal.5^th 651 (Cal. Supreme Court Jan. 13, 2022)—authored by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, discussed in our Jan. 13, 2022 post—Unused exhibit copies and unused demonstrative aids during a trial can be awarded in the discretion of the trial judge if found to be reasonably necessary to the litigation. 

17.    SLAPP. Catlin Ins. Co., Inc. v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc., 73 Cal.App.5^th 764 (Cal. App. 1^st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 11, 2022)—authored by Presiding Justice Streeter, discussed in our Jan. 12, 2022 post—After a voluntary dismissal of an action by plaintiff, the SLAPP defendant must file a costs memorandum or fee motion to preserve defendant’s entitlement to fee recoverability.

16.    LAW OF THE CASE/SANCTIONS. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Structured Asset Sales, LLC, 75 Cal.App.5^th 596 (Cal. App. 2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 24, 2022)—authored by Justice Ashmann-Gerst, discussed in our Mar. 12, 2022 post—Law of the case doctrine precluded an appellate fee request, renewed before the trial judge, where the appellate court had opined adversely in an earlier opinion; CCP § 128.5 requires that an opposing party must have the full benefit of the 21-day “safe harbor” period rather than a fractional party of the 21^st day, articulating a “bright line” approach.  The 21-day rule in BMI was later followed by Transcon Financial, Inc. v. Reid & Hellyer, APC, 81 Cal.App.5^th 549, 550-551 (Cal. App. 4^th Dist., Div. 2 July 22, 2022)—authored by Justice Menetrez and discussed in our July 24, 2022 post—as well as adopted by lower courts in subsequent law and motion proceedings.

15.    SECTION 1717. Chen v. Valstock Ventures, LLC, 81 Cal.App.5^th 197 (Cal. App. 1^st Dist., Div. 4 July 29, 2022)—authored by Justice Brown, discussed in our July 29, 2022 post—No interim award of fees are allowable under Civil Code section 1717 where not all of the claims have been resolved, such as where only a summary adjudication grant is made of certain contract claims.

14.    PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement Dist. v. 31506 Victoria Point LLC, 81 Cal.App.5^th 1068 (Cal. App. 2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 2, 2022)—authored by Presiding Justice Manella, discussed in our Aug. 4, 2022 post—Under the Whitley cost/benefit analysis, the trial court properly denied prevailing Malibu homeowners over $2.4 million in requested fees under CCP § 1021.5 because the 10-year discounted benefits to homeowners exceeded their litigation costs.

13.    EMPLOYMENT. Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., 13 Cal.5^th 93, 102 (Cal. Supreme Court May 23, 2022)—authored by Justice Kruger, discussed in our Aug. 26, 2022 post of the Betancourt decision on remand—Extra pay for missed meal and rest breaks constitutes “wages” that must be reported on statutorily required employment wage statements, such that this triggers fee recovery under Labor Code § 218.5(a).  (Accord, Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, 83 Cal.App.5^th 132 (Cal. App. 2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 12, 2022 published)—authored by Justice Grimes, discussed in our Aug. 26, 2022 post when the opinion was unpublished—following Naranjo on remand from the California Supreme Court, reversing a fee denial.)

12.    FAMILY LAW. Marriage of Knox, 83 Cal.App.5^th 15 (Cal. App. 5^th Dist. Sept. 9, 2022)—authored by Justice Franson, discussed in our Sept. 9, 2022 post—Where a family law judge failed to promptly rule on a pendente lite Family Code § 2030 request which prejudiced a self-represented litigant, a judgment on key impacted issues had to be reversed and remanded for a determination of whether section 2030 fees should be ordered.

11.    CIVIL RIGHTS/REASONABLENESS OF FEES. Shayler v. 1310 PCH, LLC, 51 F.4^th 1015 (9^th Cir. Oct. 24, 2022)—authored by Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., discussed in our Oct. 28, 2022 post—Ninth Circuit affirmed a fee award to a prevailing ADA plaintiff where the district court reduced the $31,714 fee request down to $7,896 based on an inflated hourly rate request and inefficiencies (especially staffing inefficiencies), meaningfully articulating the reason for the reductions.