Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Employment, POOF!: $1.691 Million Fee Award Gets Reversed Upon Reversal Of A Merits Determination On A Wage/Hour Statement Merits Judgment

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Generally, Fee Award Does Not Stand If A Serious Merits Judgment Reversal Occurs. In Palamino v. Northrup Gruman System Corp., Case Nos. H051676 et al. (6th Dist. Oct. 14, 2026) (unpublished), the appellate court was reviewing a wage hour statement sizable award to plaintiff of about $2 million for class damages, $3.16 million for PAGA

Probate: General Equitable Powers Do Not Authorize Fee Recovery To A Trustee Sued In Her Individual Capacity Because Those Fees Would Not Benefit The Trust

Cases: Probate

Lack Of Statutory Authorization Was Dispositive Based On The Individual Stake For Fee Recovery—Equitable Powers Extended To Protect Trust Interests. McKinley v. Harris, Case No. G066032 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 13, 2026) (published) is of interest to probate practitioners.  The basic holding is that general “probate equitable principles” do not allow a trustee to

Consumer Statutes: Two Song-Beverly Act Fee Rulings On Deadlines And Lodestar Methodology From An Orange County Superior Court Judge Are Instructive

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Judge Hesseltine Issued October 1, 2026 Tentative Rulings On Fee Applications. Although we usually post on California appellate opinions, we found that Orange County Superior Court Judge David J. Hesseltine issued some instructive tentative rulings on Song-Beverly Act fee applications which may be of interest (although we have not confirmed if the tentative rulings became

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $137,184 Attorney’s Fees Award Under Corporations Code Section 1604 Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Prevailing Plaintiff Did Not Bring An Action Or Proceeding Under Sections 1600 Or 1601 Such That Section 1604’s Permissive Fee Statute Did Not Apply. The next case we post on counsels that if you are seeking attorney’s fees under a statute, you must often bring an action or a proceeding under that specific statute under

Private Attorney General: $528,094.50 Fee Award To Nonprofit Plaintiff Against City Of Fresno Affirmed On Appeal In Dispute Over Validity of Measure P

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

However, Portion Of Fee Award Awarded Against Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Was Reversed On Appeal Because It Was Not An “Opposing Party” Under CCP § 1021.5, Meaning City Bore All Of The Fee Exposure. In Fresno Building Healthy Communities v. City of Fresno, Case Nos. F090084 et al. (5th Dist. Oct. 8, 2026) (unpublished), a

Allocation, Block Billing, Hourly Rates, Lodestar, Trade Secrets: Seattle Federal District Judge Awarded Prevailing Plaintiff Parties In Trade Secrets Act Case About $1.25 Million In Fees And A Little Over $42,000 In Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Block Billing, Cases: Hourly Rates, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Trade Secrets

Small Reductions Were Made, And No Allocation Was Required. Under both Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, there are attorney’s fees shifting provisions in favor of a prevailing plaintiff proving that the trade secret was willfully and maliciously misappropriated.  These fee entitlements were operative in Silver Fern Chemical, Inc.

POOF!, Trade Secrets: $40 Million Jury Verdict And Over $17 Million Fee Award In Defend Trade Secrets Act Case Went POOF! On Appeal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Trade Secrets

The Reason Was That The Lower Court Prejudicially Misallocated The Burden Of Dis-Proof To The Defense. Misallocation of the burden of proof, if not harmless error, can lead to disastrous results.  That was the case in Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, 181 F.4th 988 (9th Cir. July 14, 2026) [published].  There, the

Civil Rights, Costs: Lower Court’s Entry Of $15,397.96 In Routine Costs Against FEHA Non-Prevailing Plaintiff Had To Be Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

Lower Court Made No Predicate Finding That The Action Was Frivolous, With Boilerplate Language In Judgment Not Showing Express Findings Were Made To That Effect. San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries, LLC, Case No. A175977 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 2, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where a FEHA non-prevailing plaintiff lost a summary judgment motion

Nonsignatories: Property Manager Did Not Face Fee Exposure Under Contractual Lease Clause Only “Between The Parties”

Cases: Nonsignatories

Matter Goes On Between Landlord And Tenant, Although Tenant Prevailed, Based On A Partial Appellate Reversal. In Wilshire West Medical Tower, LLC v. Karimi, Case Nos. B347841 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2026) (unpublished), tenants defensed a landlord and property manager, even though the appellate court reversed on some grounds.  The lower

Special Fee Shifting Statutes (Ordinance): Prevailing Party City Of South Gate’s $99,370.50 Fee Award On A Public Nuisance Cross-Claim Under A First Amended Cross-Complaint Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

South Gate Did Not Need To Pray For Fees In The Initial Cross-Complaint Not Including A Public Nuisance Cross-Claim—The First Amended Cross-Complaint Was The Trigger, Which Did Include A Public Nuisance Claim And Prayer For Fee Recovery. After winning a summary adjudication motion on a First Amended Cross-Complaint including a public nuisance cross-claim (which was

Scroll to Top