Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Arbitration, Employment, Sanctions: Trial Court’s Grant Of 1281.98 Motion To Return Case To Court When Employer Failed To Pay Arbitration Fees Within 30 Days And Award Of Related Monetary Sanctions Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Sanctions

Section 1281.98 Was Inapplicable Because The Arbitration Agreement Was Governed By The Provisions Of The Federal Arbitration Act. In Howitson v. Evans Hotels, Case No. D085078 (4th Dist., Div. 1 October 20, 2025) (unpublished), defendant employer failed to pay an arbitration retainer within 30 days, leading Plaintiff to successfully move under CCP section 1281.98 of […]

Default Judgments: Although Unpublished, 4/2 DCA Issues An Opinion Saying That Attorney’s Fees Must Be Listed In An Entry Of Default Form In Non-Statement Of Damages Cases In Order To Recover Them In Subsequent Default Judgment Proceedings

Cases: Default Judgments

If This Is Correct, Attorneys Must List Fees, Which Are Not Damages, As A Line Item In The CIV-100 Form For Purposes Of Preserving Them At The Default Judgment Stage. Chardonnay Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Hoffman, Case No. E084439 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 15, 2025) (unpublished), seems like a routine case where a lower

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Reversal Of Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act Case Involving Relocation Benefits, Based On Lack Of Substantial Evidence, Justified Affirmance Of Over $94,600 In EAJA Fees To Plaintiffs

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

“Incurred” Under EAJA Is An Expansive Term, Encompassing Pro Bono Or Derivative Efforts. Plaintiffs, in Benally v. U.S. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, Case No. 23-3978 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2025) (published), obtained a reversal on substantial evidence grounds of an adverse relocation benefits decision (both at the administrative and district court levels)

Arbitration:  Returning Case To Court Based On Tardy Employer Payment Of Arbitration Expenses Reversed Because The Error Was An Operational Mistake

Cases: Arbitration

However, CCP Section 1281.99 Sanctions Award Was Affirmed For Employee’s Time Incurred To Pursue Efforts Based On Employer’s Tardiness. We predicted that many decisions under the employer payment deadline of Civil Code sections1281.97 and 1281.98 would be reversed or reversed/remanded under the peculiar circumstances of a matter after the California Supreme Court decided Hohenshelt v.

Private Attorney General: Where Winning Plaintiff Avoided A Catastrophic Disruption Of Its Business By Challenging Rescission Of A Scrap Metal Policy, It Properly Was Denied CCP Section 1021.5 Fees Under Whitley Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Financial Burden Not Out Of Proportion To Its Individual Stake In The Case. In Pacific Auto Recycling Centers, Inc. v. Calif. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Case No. B338236 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2025) (unpublished), PARC, a scrap metal recycler, successfully challenged DTSC’s rescission of a policy—one which had excluded some scrap

Arbitration: For 30-Day Employer Deadline To Pay Arbitration Expenses, Hohenshelt Decision Causing Remands Or Affirmance Of Trial Court Finding Justification For Later Payment Timing

Cases: Arbitration

We Predict More Remands For Pre-Hohenshelt Rulings. Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.5th 310 (2025) changed the strict application of CCP sections 1281.97 and 1281.98 in regards to employers paying arbitration expenses within 30 days of an invoice under penalty of having to return to court, finding that tardy payments could be forgiven for good

Employment, Private Attorney General: Labor Code Section 432.6 Polygraph Rights Provision Did Not Justify Fee Award For September 2018 Firing And Where Waiver Of Employment Rights Was Not Involved

Cases: Employment, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

CCP Section 1021.5 Was Inapt Because Plaintiff Was Only Vindicating Personal Wrongs. In McDoniel v. Kavry Mgt., LLC, Case No. D084660 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2025) (published), plaintiff was not advised of rights to refuse to submit to a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment under Labor Code section 432.2 and

Appeal Sanctions, SLAPP: $68,238.62 Fee Award To Defense Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Sanctioned $13,000 For Bringing A Frivolous Appeal, Payable To The Appellate Court. In G.W. v. Coronado Unified School District, Case No. D083991 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a SLAPP motion which eviscerated their Complaint. The defense then was awarded $68,238.62 in mandatory SLAPP fees, the full request,

Scroll to Top