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
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Enewsletter Sign-up
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court

Name Category Published
Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc.
Because dismissal resulted from both the client's nonparticipation and counsel's deliberate noncompliance, mandatory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) for terminating sanctions was unavailable. 		Civil Procedure, Attorneys 4DCA/1 Dec. 8, 2025
Landis' Labyrinth v. Whitaker
Where judge's factual findings in previous case met issue preclusion requirements and created triable issues regarding probable cause and malice in subsequent malicious prosecution case, summary judgment was improper. 		Torts, Attorneys 2DCA/3 Dec. 5, 2025
Dobarro v. Kim
Appellate court issued attorneys a stark and pointed reminder not to ignore binding precedent when forging their legal arguments in case involving missing a statutory deadline. 		Attorneys, Employment Law 1DCA/5 Nov. 21, 2025
Pruchnik v. JCCP4621 Common Benefit Committee
Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to prove exemption from eight-percent common benefit work product assessment imposed by court on all plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings. 		Attorneys 2DCA/7 Nov. 19, 2025
Baer v. Tedder
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030(a) and 2031.320(b) (discovery abuse sanctions) authorize a trial court to award a successful respondent attorney's fees incurred on appeal. 		Civil Procedure, Attorneys 4DCA/3 Nov. 12, 2025
People v. Guevara
Defense counsel's repeated delay and eventual failure to file resentencing brief or presenting evidence in mitigation prejudiced defendant's resentencing outcome, constituting ineffective assistance of counsel. 		Criminal Law and Procedure, Attorneys 1DCA/3 Nov. 4, 2025
County of Los Angeles v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Trial court did not err in granting judgment for Los Angeles County in fee dispute against the sheriff, because he did not have the authority to retain Quinn Emanuel as counsel. 		Attorneys, Government 2DCA/8 Oct. 27, 2025
De Meo v. Cooley LLP
Law firm had no attorney-client relationship with tech company's co-founder when its conduct evidenced that its relationship was solely with the company, not its co-founder. 		Attorneys 4DCA/1 Oct. 10, 2025
Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc.
Though attorneys' fees for "mixed work"--successful and unsuccessful claims--were recoverable under *Hensley* and the parties' section 998 agreement, district court's inadequate explanation required case's remand. 		Attorneys, Civil Procedure 9th Oct. 1, 2025
Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs
Defense counsel's argument that trial court over-awarded hours for a fee award to plaintiff's counsel was undermined by defense counsel not disclosing their own hours worked on the case. 		Attorneys 2DCA/8 Sep. 19, 2025
Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.
Counsel's use of AI-fabricated (i.e., "hallucinated") legal authority violated California Rules of Court, rendered plaintiff's appeal frivolous, and warranted monetary sanctions. 		Attorneys 2DCA/3 Sep. 16, 2025
Modification: Washington v. County of San Diego
Because Government Code section 27701 requires active practice of law in the year immediately preceding appointment, a sitting judge was ineligible for public defender position. 		Attorneys 4DCA/3 Aug. 27, 2025
Washington v. County of San Diego
Because Government Code section 27701 requires active practice of law in the year immediately preceding appointment, a sitting judge was ineligible for public defender position. 		Attorneys 4DCA/3 Aug. 25, 2025
Ramirez v. McCormack
Because plaintiff's claims against defendant attorney involved litigation-related speech, trial court erred in denying defendant attorney's anti-SLAPP motion. 		Attorneys, Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Aug. 12, 2025
Michael K. v. Cho
Attorney's rebuttal contesting client's husband's chargeback challenge to her legal fees was protected by litigation privilege under the anti-SLAPP statute. 		Attorneys, Anti-SLAPP 1DCA/5 Jul. 30, 2025
Modification: Getzels v. The State Bar of California
State Bar rule 2.30, which precludes inactive licensees from acting as private arbitrators and mediators, does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and California Constitutions. 		Attorneys, Constitutional Law 2DCA/4 Jul. 28, 2025
Gogal v. Deng
Prevailing married couple in retaliatory eviction case was not entitled to attorney's fees for work performed by attorney-spouse because there was no evidence of a bona fide attorney-client relationship. 		Attorneys 4DCA/1 Jul. 23, 2025
In re Bradshaw
Defrauding trust by repeatedly hiring contractor trustee controlled without disclosing his role and attempting to conceal this role from the court warranted disbarment. 		Attorneys CASC Jul. 7, 2025
In re: Pamela Lacher
Bankruptcy discharge injunction did not operate to stay State Bar disciplinary proceedings that arose due to attorney's conduct as to one of her debts. 		Bankruptcy, Attorneys BAP Jul. 2, 2025
Prato v. Gioia
Failure to give notice of opposing counsel's pending disciplinary action that rendered him ineligible to practice law to opposing party, once discovered, was prejudicial. 		Attorneys, Civil Procedure 4DCA/3 Jul. 1, 2025
Getzels v. The State Bar of California
State Bar rule 2.30, which precludes inactive licensees from acting as private arbitrators and mediators, does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and California Constitutions. 		Attorneys, Constitutional Law 2DCA/4 Jun. 30, 2025
Lawyers for Fair Reciprocal Admission v. U.S.
Challenge to federal district courts' local rules regarding general admission to the district court that required attorneys be a member of the forum state bar failed to state a claim. 		Attorneys 9th Jun. 23, 2025
Cash v. County of Los Angeles
Trial court's 30-percent "across the board" reduction in attorneys' fees award was justified due to padding and excessive, duplicative billing. 		Attorneys 2DCA/5 Jun. 3, 2025
Agnone v. Agnone
Imposition of sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.10 and 2023.030 for gamesmanship tactic was valid as an "unusual form of discovery abuse." 		Attorneys 2DCA/3 Jun. 3, 2025
Modification: Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying attorney who received a privileged communication from opposing counsel, refused to destroy it, and shared it with experts. 		Attorneys 3DCA Apr. 8, 2025
Modification: Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying attorney who received a privileged communication from opposing counsel, refused to destroy it, and shared it with experts. 		Attorneys 3DCA Apr. 3, 2025
Winter v. Menlo
Prospective client's disclosure of his theory of the case and related documents were material to the litigation, warranting disqualification when attorney represented opposing party. 		Attorneys 2DCA/8 Apr. 3, 2025
Talbott v. Ghadimi
Client was entitled to mandatory relief from default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) because the default was caused by his counsel's calculated delay--not his own. 		Civil Procedure, Attorneys 2DCA/7 Mar. 20, 2025
Escamilla v. Vannucci
One-year statute of limitations period for claims against attorneys only applies to professional misconduct claims between attorneys and their clients or their intended beneficiaries, not tort claims by third parties. 		Attorneys, Torts CASC Mar. 21, 2025
Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying attorney who received a privileged communication from opposing counsel, refused to destroy it, and shared it with experts. 		Attorneys 3DCA Mar. 19, 2025
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.