CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Attorney Fees

Amezcua v. The Superior Court of San Diego County (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 1141733: The Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate that reversed in part the trial court’s order conditionally granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her first amended complaint (in response to a demurrer) in her wrongful termination and wage and hour action, conditioned upon the payment by plaintiff of $25,000 in attorney fees to defendant (and real party in interest Massage Envy Franchising, LLC). The trial court relied sua sponte on Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a), finding that plaintiff had failed to adequately explain why she had not earlier amended her complaint to add substantive allegations against defendant and had acted contrary to the purpose of the meet-and-confer requirements. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and granted plaintiff’s writ petition and directed the trial court to strike the attorney fee payment condition from its order, holding that section 473 does not authorize fee-shifting as a condition of leave to amend and that, under the American rule codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, courts may only award attorney fees pursuant to specific statutory authority or party agreement—neither of which was present here—and that the statutes permitting fee sanctions (sections 128.5 and 128.7) were not invoked and their procedural safeguards were not followed. (C.A. 4th, April 24, 2026.)

Guinnane Construction Co., Inc. v. Chess (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 836484: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees incurred in prosecuting a “tort of another” action against individual tortfeasors after it had already been awarded attorney fees in the underlying specific performance action against the defendants. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that attorney fees incurred in an action against the tortfeasor to recover fees awarded under the underlying “tort of another doctrine” do not fall within any recognized exception to the general rule that each party must bear their own legal fees. (C.A. 1st, March 26, 2026.)

Employment

Monroe v. Cal. Public Employees’ Retirement System (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 458134: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandate seeking to overturn defendant’s denial of his disability retirement application. While under investigation for on-duty misconduct, plaintiff (a parole agent) applied for service retirement, pending a claim for disability retirement. His application was accepted, and he was thereafter found ineligible for a disability retirement because his departure was not related to a disability and occurred while he was under investigation for misconduct. Defendant’s CalPERS Board of Administration affirmed the denial because a prerequisite for a disability retirement was lacking: the right to return to service. The trial court denied plaintiff’s writ petition, agreeing that plaintiff was barred from applying for disability retirement benefits after he service retired while under investigation for on-duty misconduct. The Court of Appeal held that plaintiff’s service retirement while under investigation for misconduct constituted a complete severance of the employer-employee relationship, eliminating the necessary prerequisite for disability retirement—the right to potential reinstatement—and therefore rendered him ineligible for disability retirement benefits regardless of whether his departure was characterized as a service retirement or a termination for cause. (C.A. 2nd, filed February 28, 2026, published March 11, 2026.)