1. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Most recent
California Supreme Court decision (1) observing fee awards are governed by equitable principles (pages 1094-1095); (2) listing factors to be used in calculating the lodestar (page 1096); and (3) confirming that standard of review for fee award amounts is manifest abuse of discretion (page 1095).
2. Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995). The California Supreme Court
decided that fees must be awarded under Civil Code section 1717 if a
party prevails. The Court also lists the factors to be used in determining whether a litigant is a prevailing party, relying on
equitable, pragmatic considerations rather than simple arithmetic tests (page 877).
3. Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25, 48-49 (1977) (Serrano III). The
California Supreme Court adopted the private attorney general doctrine, which encourage suits to enforce important public policies by providing substantial attorney's fees to successful litigants in pubic-oriented cases.
4. Serrano v. Priest, 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 (1982) (Serrano IV). The
California Supreme Court held that, in a Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 case, the lodestar figure can be enhanced or diminished after the lower court considers such matters such as those enumerated in Serrano III.
5. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal.3d 124 (1979). Seminal
California Supreme Court decision which held (1) Civil Code section
1717 was established to infuse mutuality into contractual attorney's
fees clauses (page 128); (2) nonsignatory defendants can recover fees
under section 1717, as if they were parties to a contract, as long as
plaintiff would have entitled to fees as the prevailing party (page
128); and (3) apportionment of fees between contract and noncontract
claims by a prevailing party is not necessary where the diverse claims
were "inextricably intertwined" or overlapping in nature (page 129).
6. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal. 4th 599 (1998). The California Supreme Court determines that dismissal of contract claims before adjudication means the dismissed party cannot be a prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717. The Court did decide that other statutory fee claims may still allow possible recoupment by the dismissed party.
7. Fletcher v. Davis, 33 Cal. 4th 61 (2004). The California Supreme Court determines that when an attorney wishes to secure payment of hourly legal fees and costs of litigation by obtaining a charging lien against a client's future recovery, the attorney must obtain the client's consent in writing. Rule 3-300 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, which requires the client's informed written consent to the attorney's acquisition of an interest adverse to the client, applies to such a transaction.
8. Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131 (2001). A defendant who brings a successful anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to a mandatory award of attorney’s fees and costs.
9. Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637, 649-650 (1982). Seminal
case setting forth the substantive and procedural guidelines for
imposition of sanctions for a dilatory or frivolous appeal.
10. Vasquez v. State of Californian, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2008 WL 4936884, November 20, 2008 (NO. S143710). In noncatalyst cases where fees are sought under CCP section 1021.5, plaintiff does not have to categorically prove that reasonable settlement efforts were made, with this being an equitable factor that can be weighted in the decision to award fees.
11. Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985). If an insurer fails to act fairly and in good faith when discharging its responsibilities concerning an insurance contract, such breach may result in tort liability for proximately caused damages. Those damages can include the insurerd's cost to hire an attorney to vindicate the insured's legal rights under the insurance policy.
12. Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995). An attorney who chooses to litigate in propria persona rather than retain another attorney to represent him in an action to enforce a contract containing an attorney fee provision cannot recover "reasonable attorney's fees" under Civil Code section 1717 as compensation for the time and effort expended and the professional business opportunities lost as a result.
13. Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 970 (2010). Trial court does not abuse its discretion in deny FEHA fees altogether to a prevailing party where fee request is unreasonably inflated.
14. Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (2010). Under private attorney general statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., section 1021.5), a litigant's personal nonpecuniary interests may not be used to disqualify the litigant from obtaining fees under section 1021.5; rather, the court must focus on the financial burdens and incentives involved in bringing the lawsuit.