Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge did not err in awarding a party attorney fees for succeeding on a motion to appoint an arbitrator under a contract providing that “the prevailing party” may recover such costs incurred “in having the matter ordered” to arbitration, rejecting the opposing side’s assertion that the ruling was premature as the success was only as to an “interim procedural step” in an ongoing dispute.

On May 7, 1884, an engraved cornerstone filled with local records and items from the 19th century was added to the structure of a Sonoma County courthouse being built in downtown Santa Rosa.

Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal held yesterday that a law firm was properly granted summary judgment as to its entitlement to receive more than $2.7 million in fees—under a retainer contract providing the attorneys with the right to 45% of any recovery—after it negotiated, without the client’s express authorization, a settlement of more than $6 million, which the party only signed after firing the lawyers and hiring new counsel.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed an order granting summary judgment to Apple Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit filed by a fellow Silicon Valley technology company that accused the device giant of illegally shutting out third-party app developers from accessing previously available heart rate information gathered through the use of the defendant’s watches by creating an update that was incompatible with the plaintiff’s products.