In Wilson v. Tap Worldwide, LLC (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1077, the Court of Appeal reversed an attorney's fee award, holding that a defendant's arbitration fee payment arriving one business day late does not constitute "abandonment" under Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.98. Applying the new standard from Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, the court held that abandonment (and its fee-shifting remedy) requires the payment lapse to be "willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent."

This decision is one of the first to apply Hohenshelt, confirming that the statute's severe penalties are no longer available for minor, non-willful payment errors and effectively ending "gotcha" motions to vacate arbitration based on technical payment timing issues.

In Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 156 F.4th 917, the Ninth Circuit held that a Code of Civil Procedure § 998 offer allowing fees for "individual claims" does not implicitly waive the plaintiff's right to recover fees for "inextricably intertwined" PAGA or class claims, and any such waiver must be express. However, the court vacated the $300,000 fee award because the district court's Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424 analysis was unclear and contradictory, failing to provide the reasoned explanation required by Moreno v. City of Sacramento (9th Cir. 2008) 534 F.3d 1106.

This decision warns defense counsel to be explicit about fee exclusions in § 998 offers and reminds trial courts that they must clearly articulate their Hensley calculations to survive appeal.

In Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 537, the Court of Appeal affirmed a $4.9 million FEHA attorney fee award, holding that a trial court has broad discretion to credit a plaintiff's fee expert over a defendant's and set high hourly rates based on its personal observation of counsel's skill. The court also confirmed that lodestar multipliers can be applied to post-judgment work, including fee litigation.

This decision reinforces a trial court's wide latitude in calculating and awarding attorney's fees under FEHA and serves as a warning that defendants who fail to provide robust counter-evidence (like their own attorneys' hours) will struggle to challenge an award on appeal.

In Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 211, the Court of Appeal held that a wage and hour plaintiff who loses their claim at a Berman hearing but subsequently prevails in a trial de novo is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code §§ 218.5, 226, and 119. It ruled that the trial de novo is an independent "action," not merely an appeal governed by the fee-shifting limits of § 98.2 (c).

This decision confirms that employees do not forfeit their statutory right to attorney's fees by first pursuing, and even losing, an informal Berman hearing.

In Winston v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 402, the Court of Appeal held that Labor Code § 1102.5(j)'s attorney fee provision applies retroactively to cases that were pending when the statute was enacted. The court affirmed the long-standing rule that fee-shifting statutes are procedural and apply to active litigation absent clear legislative intent to the contrary.

This decision confirms that plaintiffs in pending whistleblower cases can recover fees under § 1102.5(j), even if their case was filed before the fee provision existed.

In Chavez v. California Collision (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 298, the Court of Appeal held that a defendant in a wage and hour action cannot recover costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 998. Following Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 221, the court held that the specific, one-way cost-shifting provisions of Labor Code §§ 1194 and 218.5 displace the general, two-way framework of § 998.

This decision solidifies that employers are barred from recovering § 998 costs in wage actions, preserving the Labor Code's policy of protecting plaintiffs from cost-shifting penalties unless their claim was brought in bad faith.

In Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 56, the Court of Appeal held that an employer's "ongoing inaction" in response to harassment complaints does not trigger the permanence exception to FEHA's continuing violations doctrine. The court ruled that permanence requires a definitive act or communication from the employer (like resolving the issue or communicating a refusal to do so), not just a passive failure to act.

This decision clarifies that employers cannot establish a "permanence" defense—and thus start the statute of limitations clock—simply by ignoring an employee's complaints over a long period.

In Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc.(2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1094, the Court of Appeal held that a trial court's discretion to deny costs for a low recovery under Code of Civil Procedure §1033(a) is preempted by Labor Code §1194(a)'s mandate to award fees and costs to prevailing minimum wage plaintiffs "irrespective of the amount recovered."

This decision secures a plaintiff's entitlement to fees in all successful minimum wage cases, shifting the battleground from if fees will be awarded to the reasonableness of the amount sought on remand.