Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Employment: Employers Requiring Repayment, Collection, Or Penalties Tethered To Employment Termination Can Be Sued, With Liquidated Penalties And Reasonable Attorney’s Fees Assessed Against Violating Employers

Cases: Employment

There Are Some Specified Exclusions. Assembly Bill No. 692, adding Business and Professions Code section 16608 and Labor Code section 926 to the statutory law effective January 1, 2026, prohibits employers from entering into employment contract containing terms that require repayment, collection, or penalties triggered by termination of employment. Employees have the right to bring […]

Landlord/Tenant, Section 1717: Where Tenants Prevailed Against Landlord’s Cross-Claim Alleging A Contractual Breach Claim, Tenants Were Entitled To Reasonable Fees

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

Denial Of Fees Was Improper, Because Tenants Showed The Written Lease With A Fees Clause Was Inapplicable. In Hernandez v. Kocsis, Case No. G064238 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 4, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Sanchez, the 4/3 DCA reversed a denial of attorney’s fees requested by plaintiffs/tenants.  The case involved a negligence/premises liability case

Family Law: Although Ex-Wife Did Not Strictly Comply With Income And Expense Documentation, She Did Substantially Comply Such That The Denial On The Technicality Had To Be Reversed, Remanding To Determine The Family Code § 2030 Fees To Be Awarded

Cases: Family Law

Ex-Wife Did Substantially Comply Before The 2030 Hearing, With Husband Stipulating To A Disparity. In Marriage of Stewart, Case No. B339569 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife sought two tranches of Family Code section 2030 “needs-based” fees because she was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to her divorce attorney for

Sanctions: Sanctions For Missing A Final Status Conference Were Appropriate, But Had To Be Reduced For Calibration To The Actual Expenses For the Missed FSC

Cases: Sanctions

No Huge Dispute, But Appellate Court Only Awarded Sanctions For Direct Expenses Relating To the FSC Violation. Steele v. Paulee Body Shop, Inc., Case No. B344258 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished) shows how a sanctions request needs to be calibrated to expenses incurred on the actual violation, not ancillary expenses which are

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $3,000 Discovery Sanctions Order Reversed And Remanded For A Lack Of Competent Substantiation

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

A Generalized Estimate Of Fees Expended On A Discovery Dispute Was Inadequate. In Marriage of Pair, Case No. F089740 (5th Dist. Jan. 29, 2026) (unpublished), a $3,000 sanctions award against ex-wife and her counsel in a discovery dispute was reversed.  It was not reversed on the merits.  Instead, it was reversed and remanded because the

Private Attorney General: Where Plaintiffs Obtained Revisions Under Certain Deceptive Contracts, They Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Of $1.5 Million

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Lost Restitution Claims Under The UCL, But They Were A Catalyst. As any defense attorney knows in public interest or class action cases, a catalyst theory is something to pay close attention to.  It may allow for recovery of private attorney general fees even if the plaintiff ultimately does not receive restitution. Howard v.

Ethics: Although Discovery Sanctions Affirmed In A Family Law Matter, Appellate Court Advises Attorneys Not To Make Character Attacks In Appellate Briefs

Cases: Ethics

It Reminds All Attorneys, Even Younger Ones, To Safeguard Their Reputations—You Have To Preserve Them! No need to post on the specifics of Marriage of Alexander, Case No. A172184 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 27, 2026, posted on Jan. 28, 2026) (unpublished), which affirmed discovery sanctions imposed in a very contentious family law case.  However,

Appealability, Costs: Plaintiffs Previously Dismissing A Case Voluntarily Cannot Attempt To Resurrect Arguments Relating To Prior Nonappealable Orders Through A Subsequent Partially Denied Routine Costs Order

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs

The Costs Order Under Review Was Not Final. This post likely will be of interest to appellate attorneys on appealability issues, but it may guide trial level litigation counsel on what type of routine costs orders will be considered as appealable. In Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc., Case No. C102857 (3d Dist. Jan. 28,

Requests For Admission, Section 998: In Automobile Collision Case, CCP § 998 Offer Was Not Invalid For Requiring Consent By Defense Insurer Carriers, And Costs Of Proof Sanctions Properly Denied To Plaintiff

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

However, The Reasonableness Of The 998 Offer—Not Ruled On By The Lower Court—Had To Be Revisited On Remand. Matthews v. Ryan, Case Nos. B335736 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 28, 2026) (partially published; 998 discussion published, but costs of proof sanctions discussion not published) has two good discussions, one on 998 offers which

Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees:  $33,712.91 Fee Award To Prevailing Party Neighbor Was Affirmed In A Complicated Civil Harassment Matter

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

$650 Hourly Rate For 15-Year Attorney And $450 For A Paralegal Were Found Reasonable In A Contentious Santa Clara County Case. Two neighbors had very bad experiences with each other, with one neighbor obtaining a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) and being awarded $33,712.91 in prevailing party attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 against the

Scroll to Top