| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
C100487
|
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
Plaintiffs, the non-prevailing party in a CEQA action, were not entitled to attorneys' fees under the "catalyst theory" because a judicial resolution on the merits had been reached. |
Fees and Costs, Environmental Law |
|
L. Earl | Mar. 6, 2026 |
|
D084360
|
Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC
Motion for attorneys' fees was untimely, where attorney filed but did not serve motion within 180 days of voluntary dismissal. |
Fees and Costs |
|
J. Irion | Feb. 19, 2026 |
|
D084385
|
Haun v. Pagano
Awarding fees to prevailing party in cross-petitions alleging financial elder abuse did not violate unilateral statutory fee-shifting provision's legislative purpose because work defending and prosecuting the claim were inextricably intertwined. |
Fees and Costs |
|
J. McConnell | Feb. 19, 2026 |
|
D084193
|
Barbanell v. Lodge
Because trial court's judgment granting the petition to appoint an arbitrator terminated a discrete action on the contract, respondents were entitled to attorneys' fees notwithstanding ongoing disputes elsewhere. |
Fees and Costs, Arbitration |
|
J. Kelety | Jan. 12, 2026 |
|
25-1077
|
In re Gilsvik
Bankruptcy court's decision to reduce debtor's attorney's fees by over $3,000 was not clearly erroneous based on the services rendered and the minimal complexity of the case. |
Fees and Costs, Bankruptcy |
|
F. Corbit | Jan. 13, 2026 |
|
B337927
|
Honchariw v. PMF CA REIT
Neither self-represented attorney nor his non-attorney spouse could not recover attorney fees in litigation involving community property interests. |
Fees and Costs |
|
L. Edmon | Jan. 5, 2026 |
|
A170704
|
Coalition of Pacificans v. City Council
Trial court exceeded its discretion in analyzing the factors set forth in the Housing Accountability Act, requiring reversal of public benefit attorneys' fees award. |
Fees and Costs, Government |
|
J. Streeter | Jan. 2, 2026 |
|
A172510
|
Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California
Plaintiffs were not "successful parties" under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 where their temporary appellate victories were abrogated by legislation and reversed by the Supreme Court. |
Fees and Costs |
|
G. Burns | Dec. 23, 2025 |
For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices or call 213-229-5424. To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com