Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Lodestar: Ninth Circuit Determines That Size Of The Law Firm Alone Should Not Compel A Reduction In An Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Lodestar

The Winning Attorneys In A 4-Man Firm Had An Impressive Robison-Patmas Act Litigation Record. In L.A. Int’l Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., Case Nos. 24-3776 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2026) (published), a 4-man firm obtained a substantial liability determination and permanent injunction on behalf Wholesales in a Robinson-Patman Act case, with the […]

Section 1717: Settlement Agreement With Fees Clause, Incorporated Into A Subsequent Judgment, Does Allow For Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717

Fifth District So Holds In A Contentious Matter. The Fifth District, in Wash v. Wash, Case Nos. F084442/F084443 (5th Dist. Feb. 23,, 2026) (unpublished), confirmed that a contractual fees clause in a settlement agreement, when properly incorporated into a subsequent judgment, can give rise to a fee recovery for a prevailing party under Civil Code

Reasonableness Of Fees: Court Of Appeal Reversed And Remanded A 50% Haircut For Further Explanation Where There Was A Civil Code § 1717 Basis For Fees

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

There Needed To Be More Explanation For The Fee Reduction. Unfortunately, there is no bright-line rule relating to lower court fee “haircuts” at the state court level, although some civil rights decision may suggest there is.  On the federal level, the Moreno from the Ninth Circuitsays that a fee haircut over 10% needs an explanation. 

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Award Of Fees Under Civil Code Section 3496 Against City Of El Monte Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Procedural Challenge Did Not Prevail. In City of El Monte v. Lincoln, Case No. B344087 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 23, 2026) (unpublished), City lost a post-judgment fee order against plaintiff based on losing successive demurrers based on Civil Code section 3496.  That section, applying to abatement by a municipality relating to a controlled substance,

Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, SLAPP, Substantiation Of Reasonableness of Fees: $50,305 SLAPP Appellate Fee Award To Prevailing Defendants Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Lower Court Reduced The Requested $95,519.88 In Appellate Fees To Almost Half. In Malik v. Carlson & Gevelinger, Case No. C101751 (3d Dist. Feb. 20, 2026) (unpublished), prevailing defendants earlier had been awarded SLAPP trial level fees of $14,960 (out of a requested $37,917.48) against plaintiffs, with the lower court reducing for requested hourly rates

Construction, Nonsignatories, Section 1717: $108,501.40 Fee Award Against Cross-Complainants Who Voluntarily Dismissed Their Cross-Complaint Is Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Construction, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

Santisas, Unilateral Fee-Shifting, And Section 1717 Principles Led To The Reversal. Cross-complainants voluntarily dismissed their cross-complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, disgorgement, Business and Professions Code section 7160 fraudulent inducement to enter a contract, and unjust enrichment as against two individual cross-defendants alleged to be

SLAPP: Where SLAPP Defendant Groups Were Granted Reduced Fees, Plaintiff’s Appeal About The Lower Amounts Awarded Did Not Resonate On Appeal

Cases: SLAPP

Lower Court Even Applied Discounted Hourly Rates Stipulated To By Defense Counsel–No Abuse of Discretion Demonstrated. In Qassimyar v. Ortega, Case No. D084317 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 19, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion brought by two sets of defendants.  The merits determination was affirmed on appeal, but plaintiff also contested mandatory fee

Allocation, Probate, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where There Were Dueling Probate Petitions For Financial Elder Abuse Claims, The Prevailing Petitioner—Even Though A Cross-Respondent Defensing The Unsuccessful Elder Abuse Petition—Was Entitled To Intertwined Fee Work For Prevailing As A Petitioner And Defending As A Cross-Respondent

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Probate, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Other Cases In Unilateral Fee-Shifting Contexts Were Distinguishable. In Haun v. Pagano, Case No. D084385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 18, 2026) (published), the nature of the probate proceedings looks like it drove the result in the case as far as awarding fees under the financial elder abuse statute, which only allows unilateral fee-shifting in

Family Law, Sanctions: Family Law Section 271 Sanctions Of $35,000 Reversed Against Ex-Husband Because . . . .

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

His Failure To Stipulate Did Not Show Bad Faith Under The Circumstances And The Awarded Sanctions Were Not Tethered To Any Specific Conduct. Family Code section 271 does allow for monetary “sanctions” against a family law litigant who tries to not foster resolution and makes the proceedings more expensive.  However, they are not a general

Costs, Section 998: Because Defense 998 Offer Was Valid And It Defensed The Plaintiff, Routine Costs Were Allowable But Had To Be Further Reduced

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

After The Lower Court Erred In Not Taxing Some Routine Costs, Especially Some Conceded By The Defense As Being Erroneous, The Costs Judgment Had To Be Modified On Appeal. Reyes-Gonzalez v. Color Marble, Inc., Case No. B350612 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished) involved a case where plaintiff was “defensed” by the defendant,

Scroll to Top