Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar: Lower Court’s 87.6% Reduction In A Lemon Law Fee Request Was Reversed As An Abuse Of Discretion Based On The Record On The Lodestar Analysis

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar

Awarding $15,000 In A Lemon Law Case Requesting $81,455.83 In Fees/Costs Was Not Fair And Required A Revisit. In Rosales v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. G063792 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), a settlement was reached in a lemon law case where attorney’s fees became the important issue at the back […]

Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Undertaking: Prevailing Defendant In A Derivative Lawsuit—After Losing A Bond Motion–Can Seek Trial And Appellate Costs, Not Limited By The $50,000 Bonding Amount Specified In Corporations Code Section 17709.02

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Undertaking

Section 17709.02 Does Not Trump The CCP § 1032 Trial Routine Costs Statute Or The CRC 8.891 Appellate Routine Costs Provision. In Barrios v. Chraghchian, Case No. B341773 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 20, 2026) (published), a defendant brought a bond motion under Corporations Code section 17709.02 to have a derivative lawsuit plaintiff furnish security

Arbitration: $220,817 Arbitration Fee Award Is Affirmed In Favor Of One Plaintiff, Because Moncharsh Did Not Show A Basis For Arbitral Reversal

Cases: Arbitration

Lower Court’s Denial Of Post-Judgment Vacatur Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff/Employee Was Justified. In Fishman v. Advisors LLP, Case No. B334179 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 15, 2026) (unpublished), a couple of former lawyers/nonequity partners sued their former law firm for compensation and over the validity of a non-compete clause.  There were various proceedings; however, one

Allocation, Section 1717: Appellate Court Affirms A Substantial Fee And Costs Award In A Mixed Contract/Tort Case Based On Santisas

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Case Drew Three Opinions, A Concurrence Finding 70% Defense Allocation For Tort Claims Was Reasonable, But With A Dissenting Justice Finding More Delineation Between Contract/Tort Claims Was In Order. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) [our Leading Case #6] was substantively upfront and center in National Merchants Assn. v. Commercial Bank of California, Case

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Winning Plaintiff In Car Towing Dispute Did Not Have Fee Recovery Entitlement Under Civil Code Section 3070

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Interlocutory Determination Of Entitlement Was Not Binding, With Section 3070 Being Inapplicable With Respect To Fee Recovery. Plaintiff won an apartment complex car towing dispute against some defendants, but she was denied requested attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 3070 in Ramsey v. Moore St. Investments, Inc., Case Nos. D084287 et al. (4th Dist., Div.

Ethics, Settlement: Client May Ratify An Unauthorized Settlement Unless It Was Not Truly Voluntary

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Settlement

Clients In the Case Did Ratify, Which Earned The Settling Former Attorneys A Nice Contingency Fee Award. Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP, Case No. B341157 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 8, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion published) contains a good discussion of when a client can ratify an unauthorized settlement reached by former attorneys and

Scroll to Top