
Here are a few cases I did not have time to write up but seemed either important or irritating enough to mention:
Self-represented attorney CAN get fees awarded when co-litigant is spouse, but it's fact specific: there has to be a true professional relationship between spouses. If the attorney spouse was making all the decisions, no dice. Gogal v. Deng (Cal. Ct. App., July 22, 2025, No. D084405)
Attorneys have a continuing CCP 128.7 duty to “throw in the towel” if subsequent discovery compromises the case. Alanic International Corp. v. Baraness Investments LLC (Cal. Ct. App., July 23, 2025, No. B334512) (non-pub. opn.)
CCP § 998 no-no: Defense got awarded $241k for beating the 998 offer, but the offer contained an improper “all claims that could have been brought” clause. Held: 998 offer invalid, so award goes away. Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Enchante Accessories, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., July 25, 2025, No. B337902) (non-pub. opn.)
Base your attorney fee motion on BOTH section 1717 AND 1021. Law firm defensed malpractice action but ironically (or not?) fumbled the fee motion. Martin v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., July 25, 2025, No. H050803) (non-pub. opn)
(Artwork by Randall Holbrook, RNDL.DESIGN.)