The Supreme Court of California isn’t always interested in money disputes, but throw attorney misconduct into the mix and you get the City of LA v. Pricewaterhousecoopers reinstating a sanction for “egregious” city attorney’s office collusion totaling $2.5 million.

Angling for contractual attorneys’ fees in your defense? The recent Am. Bldg. Innovation v. Balfour Beatty Constr. case reminds attorneys to consider whether asserting the contract in an affirmative defense is enough, or if you need to file a cross-complaint.

We also discuss:

• Family law contingency agreements are invalid.
• Was the directed verdict for the NFL appropriate in the $14 billion antitrust case? The judge ruled that the plaintiffs’ expert opinion should have been excluded. But isn’t the remedy pretty clearly a new trial rather than JMOL?

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, Case No. S277211 (Cal. Supreme Ct. Aug. 22, 2024) (published). Previously discussed in “PMQ Declarations, Extortion & AI Judges”, and **$2.5M Discovery Sanction Reversed Because Not Authorized by a Specific Statute, But Justice Grimes Pens a Strong Dissent.**
• **Prevailing on a Contract Affirmative Defense Gives Rise to Civ. Code § 1717 Fees** Am. Bldg. Innovation v. Balfour Beatty Constr. (D4d3 Sep. 3, 2024) No. G062471 [pub. opn.]
• Wright v. Wright, Case No. B330901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2024) (unpublished) via CalAttorneysFees.com
• Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered judgment as a matter of law for the NFL
• Reductio ad arbitrium absurdum: Disney wants to kick a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida to arbitration.
• Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.