Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Allocation, Costs, Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party On Appeal:  HOA Was The Prevailing Party For Appellate Costs And Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

. . . But Fees Had To Be Allocated To Only Successful Claims Because Opponent Prevailed On Some Issues. The Colony at Cal. Oaks HOA v. Majestic Asset Mgt., LLC, Case No. D083140 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2026) (unpublished) was an HOA versus certain member dispute involving a golf course.  The case, on

Appealability, SLAPP: 2/7 DCA Again Holds That Order Granting Prevailing Party’s Motion For SLAPP Fees Is Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

This Follows Its Earlier Conclusion In The Published Clapkin Case. On March 17, 2026, we posted on Clapkin v. Levin, 119 Cal.App.5th 222 (2026), a 2/7 DCA opinion where the appellate court determined that an order denying a SLAPP fee motion is not appealable.  The same Division followed that reasoning in Moussazadeh v. Integrative Surgical

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Taduran Decision Recently Certified For Publication

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Opinion Affirmed A Negative Multiplier And Rejection Of A Positive Multiplier When Prevailing Employee Challenged The Fee Award As Too Small Under The Abuse Of Discretion Review Standard. In our May 29, 2026 post, we discussed Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G06478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026 filed;

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Sisters Escaping Liability To County/Receiver In State Housing Law Abatement Receivership Were Entitled To Fees Under Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7(c)(11)—They Were Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

More Generalized H&S Code Section 17984 Did Not Trump More Specific, Recently Enacted Statute, With Sisters Being The Parties Obtaining Their Specific Litigation Objectives Although The County Did Somewhat Prevail On More Tangential Issues. In County of Del Norte v. Britt, Case No. A173145 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion

Sanctions: Total Sanctions Of $6,000 Under CCP § 128.7, $5,000 To The Primary Defendant And $1,000 To The Lower Court, Was No Abuse Of Discretion Given Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Being Unable To Explain Why They Opposed A Stay Motion And Given Delegation To A Contract Attorney Who Cited To Non-Existent Cases, Hallucinations, And Citations Which Did Not Exist In Cases Relied On In The Stay Opposition

Cases: Sanctions

Attorneys’ Safe Harbor/Technical § 128.7 Arguments Were Forfeited Because They Were Not Raised Before The Lower Court—Not To Mention Attorneys Could Have Withdrawn Their Stay Opposition. Bad facts generally lead to losing appeals, and possibly more repercussions.  Here, both the lower and appellate courts found that lead attorneys in two overlapping class actions had incredulous

In The News: California Judicial Council Releases Court Statistics For 2015-16 Through 2024-25, As Well As For 2024-2025

In The News

The Reports Shows Statistics For CA Supreme Court Review Grants, DCA Publication Rates, DCA Disposition Rates, and Superior Court Disposition Rates.                On the California Supreme Court website under “Judicial Council,” one can find the Judicial Council of California’s court statistics report for 2015-16 through 2024-25, which has a wealth of information.  One may consult

Class Actions, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: $2.274 Million Fee Award To Class Counsel, Where The Case Settled For $575,000, Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiffs Had Asked For About $7.465 Million Inclusive Of A 2.0 Positive Multiplier, With The Appellate Court Rebuffing That Any Further Reduction Was Justified. Defendant reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a class action case in Davis v. AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Case No. B348322 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 1, 2026) (unpublished) for $575,000, although

Scroll to Top