-
May 29, 2026
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A Florida federal judge denied a motion filed by the maker of Fume-brand vapes for attorney fees incurred litigating putative class claims against it for violation of Florida’s consumer protection statute and unjust enrichment by allegedly misleadingly marketing its vape products, which the defendant said were “repetitive” because the plaintiffs “repackaged” the claim after dismissal and moved for reconsideration.
-
May 29, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on May 28 entered final judgment in favor of a certified class of consumers of Cake-brand vape products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) against two nonappearing companies for violating California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws by mislabeling the THC content of their vapes. The judge ordered the companies to correct their labels and awarded class counsel approximately $850,000 in attorney fees and costs.
-
May 29, 2026
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that the American Rule doesn’t bar recovery of attorney fees that certain descendants incurred in prior litigation to enforce settlements between themselves and other descendants as breach-of-contract damages, as long as the breach was not the basis for the prior litigation.
-
May 28, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A payday lender will pay $5.2 million and for two years refrain from assessing transfer fees on direct transfers of advances to active-duty service members and eligible dependents to end class claims that it engaged in predatory lending practices in violation of the Military Lending Act (MLA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Georgia Payday Loan Act (GPLA), pursuant to a settlement agreement granted final approval by a federal judge in California.
-
May 22, 2026
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — Granting a disability insurer’s motion to enforce a confidential settlement agreement in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit over termination of benefits, a Tennessee federal judge found that the claimant acted in bad faith and that the insurer is entitled to “reasonable attorney fees.”
-
May 20, 2026
LINCOLN, Neb.— A federal judge in Nebraska approved a $4 million class action settlement arising from a 2024 data breach that compromised the private information of current and former patients of a healthcare advisory firm’s clients, holding that class certification is appropriate, the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and the plaintiffs’ requested $1,333,333 in attorney fees and $2,500 service award for each class representative are both reasonable.
-
May 20, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California issued an order granting final approval to a settlement to end shareholders’ derivative class action against Wells Fargo & Co. over allegedly discriminatory lending and hiring practices.
-
May 19, 2026
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Kentucky federal judge who previously said that the plaintiff in a long-term disability (LTD) case appeared to be “eligible to receive a fee award because she has achieved some degree of success on the merits by virtue of the remand order” ultimately awarded her $450.37 in costs but denied her request for $20,921 in attorney fees; the judge also denied the plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case, saying that it “was filed prematurely.”
-
May 18, 2026
MIAMI — A Florida appeals panel affirmed a lower court’s order that entered as its final judgment an arbitrator’s decision that an insured take nothing against an insurer in a breach of contract lawsuit over wind damage, agreeing with the lower court that the insured failed to attach the essential notice of rejection to its motion for trial de novo.
-
May 15, 2026
ST. LOUIS — Finding no abuse of discretion, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed imposition of a $38,507.44 sanction and denial of a motion to depose a law firm, noting that the trial court determined that the motion constituted a willful violation of an order that said no additional discovery regarding the finances of a third-party defendant would “‘be permitted absent new evidence of fraudulent or voidable transactions.’”
-
May 14, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a lower court’s decision to award a company certain attorney fees it incurred defending itself against patent infringement claims, finding that the lower court was right to find the case “exceptional.”
-
May 14, 2026
FRESNO, Calif. — The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) will pay $303 million to end wage-fixing claims by current and former “volunteer” college coaches after final class settlement approval was granted by a federal judge in California who noted that class counsel reported that the settlement amount is more than 100% of the alleged damages.
-
May 13, 2026
CINCINNATI — A Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed the award of compensatory damages and attorney fees in a former restaurant employee’s case against the company that owned the restaurant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, finding that the lower court didn’t abuse its discretion in awarding damages or attorney fees.
-
May 13, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on May 12 published a tribunal’s supplementary decision finding that it “omitted” an award of interest on historic losses to which a French investor was entitled and added 9.2 million euros to the previous award of 85 million euros against the Italian Republic and ordered Italy to pay 74,000 euros in attorney fees for raising “unmeritorious” arguments that made the proceeding more costly.
-
May 12, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel found that a relator was not entitled to attorney fees after the United States settled with an Army contractor because the government settled with the contractor after choosing not to pursue the relator’s claims.
-
May 12, 2026
PASADENA, Calif. — Largely siding with a group health plan participant in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit over surgery coverage, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued an unpublished memorandum disposition ruling that the trial court correctly applied a deferential standard of review but abused its discretion by denying attorney fees and declining to impose statutory penalties.
-
May 12, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — Awarding attorney fees that totaled 20% of the total settlement instead of the requested 33-1/3%, a Virginia federal judge granted final approval of a $4.7 million class settlement in a case that survived dismissal and was part of a wave of similar Employee Retirement Income Security Act suits over health plan tobacco surcharges.
-
May 12, 2026
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled that property owners were not owed attorney fees under the terms of their mortgage documents or Florida state law after a lower court dismissed a bank’s foreclosure complaint against them because the bank failed to serve the complaint on the property owners within the required time, finding that the property owners were not the prevailing party under Florida law.
-
May 11, 2026
NEW CASTLE, Del. — Following a request by the appellants, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a slightly revised opinion that did not change the outcome reversing the Delaware Court of Chancery in a unanimous en banc ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not bar “advancement of litigation expenses for the defense of state-law claims brought in state court” because the facts show that the advancement “does not relieve Defendants from ERISA responsibility or liability.”
-
May 08, 2026
ST. LOUIS — One day after the parties, citing a settlement, filed a joint motion to dismiss an appeal filed by the operators of a group home challenging a Minnesota federal court’s holding that a commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend them against an underlying negligence lawsuit and that they are not entitled to attorney fees, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals entered judgment dismissing the appeal.
-
May 08, 2026
NEW YORK — A reinsurer filed a notice of supplemental authority urging a New York federal court to confirm two arbitration awards and reject an intergovernmental risk pool’s Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) vacatur challenge, arguing that recent reinsurance arbitration rulings involving comparable arbitration provisions held that arbitral reliance on insurance and reinsurance custom and practice, rather than rules of law, does not establish a basis for vacatur.
-
May 08, 2026
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court found that two school board members were owed attorney fees after a lower court issued a temporary injunction ordering the school board to provide certain requested information, finding that in this instance, the board members prevailed under the Texas Education Code because the injunction is the final relief the law authorizes.
-
May 08, 2026
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California granted final approval to a $7.25 million settlement in a case brought by investors against a biopharmaceutical company, certain of its executives and board members for alleged misstatements the defendants made regarding the risks associated with the Phase 3 clinical trial of the company’s lead drug candidate, which led to the company’s stock being artificially inflated.
-
May 06, 2026
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Overruling the lone objection he said failed to “raise substantive or persuasive concerns about the adequacy, reasonableness, or fairness of the settlement,” a California federal judge granted final approval to a $21.5 million class deal that resolved a long-running Employee Retirement Income Security Act pension benefits class action the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals partly revived in November 2024 after a bench trial.
-
May 06, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California issued a pretrial order on an insurer’s declaratory relief claims and the insured’s remaining counterclaims for breach of contract, violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and declaratory relief five days after ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment that the insurer had a continuing duty to defend its insured even after the defamation claim in the underlying lawsuit was dismissed.