Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Civil Harassment Fee-Shifting Statute Does Not Require A Determination Of Either Party’s Ability To Pay Before Awarding Fees

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Compared To Other Statutes, Nothing In CCP § 527.6 Requires A Needs Assessment. In States v. MacKrell, Case No. G065683 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 9, 2026) (unpublished), after a lower court awarded $8,397.43 in attorney’s fees and costs for a request to extend a civil harassment restraining order against a litigant, the appellate court […]

Probate: Trustee Found Liable For Misappropriating Property Was Properly Assessed A Two-Fold Civil Penalty, As Well As Hit With Reasonable Attorney’s Fees And Costs

Cases: Probate

Probate Code Section 859 Was The Penalty And Fees/Costs Entitlement Statute. In a very sad set of facts, but ones under which beneficiaries prevailed against a misappropriating trustee, the lower court in Moramarco v. Nowakoski, Case No. E084620 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 5, 2026) (unpublished), following a State Bar disbarment/restitution order because trustee was

Arbitration: Even With Qualifying Language Found Insufficient, Fees And Costs Provisions In The Employment Agreement Were Found Substantively Unconscionable

Cases: Arbitration

However, Remand Was Ordered To See If Severance Could Allow Arbitration To Proceed. In Foster v. Liberty Military Housing Holdings, LLC, Case No. D085268 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 4, 2026; posted Mar. 5, 2026) (unpublished), an employment agreement had an arbitration clause with the following fees and costs provisions: “If required by law applicable

Private Attorney General: CCP § 1021 Catalyst Fee Recovery Not Available To Plaintiffs Where The Other Side Voluntarily Provided Relief Only After Plaintiffs Had Lost Relief In A Prior Merits Judgment

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Case Found That Plaintiffs Could Not Meet The Successful Parties Element, Even Under A Catalyst Theory. In Physicians for Social Responsibility – L.A. v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Case No. C100487 (3d Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (published), the appellate court affirmed a denial of private attorney general fees, under a catalyst theory, where the

Prevailing Party: Where Plaintiff Through A Settlement Obtained A Rescission And Partial Restitution Of Prejudgment Interest, The Lower Court Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Under A Contractual Fees Clause Because A Mixed Result Occurred

Cases: Prevailing Party

$800,000 Fee Request Denied, With The Appellate Court Observing That The Result Could Have Gone The Other Way—But Discretion Is Involved When One Side Does Not Knock It Completely Out Of The Park. Hakim-Baba v. Desai, Case No. H050787 (6th Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (unpublished) was a messy case where plaintiff primarily sought to rescind

Arbitration, Homeowner Associations: Given That Homeowner Claims Arose From Governing Documents, An Adverse $254,815.53 Fee/Costs Award Was Affirmed After HOA Prevailed At An Arbitration

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Homeowner Associations

A Broad By-Law Fees/Cost Clause, The Davis-Stirling Act, And JAMS Cost Provision Amply Justified The Arbitration Award Which Was Confirmed As A Judgment. The next post illustrates a familiar ending story in many homeowner-HOA disputes, whether brough in court or in arbitration:  a prevailing party will face the prospect of obtaining substantial recoupment of attorney’s

Equity, Section 998, Settlement: Trial Court’s Refusal To Vacate A Judgment Based On 998 Offers Allegedly Not Consented To By Plaintiff’s Counsel Was Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Settlement

Lower Court Did Not Evaluate Under Inherent Authority Of The Court Standards, So A Revisit Was In Order. In Chen v. Asian Square, Inc., Case No. H052309 (6th Dist. Feb. 25, 2026) (unpublished), within hours of defendant accepting plaintiffs’ CCP § 998 offers, plaintiffs’ counsel notified defendant that plaintiffs had not provided informed consent for

Scroll to Top