Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Family Law: Trial Court Abused Its Discretion By Basing Denial Of Section 2030 Fees And Costs Request On Grandmother’s Misuse Of Grandchildren’s 529 Accounts And Her Lack Of A Significant Relationship With Grandchildren

Cases: Family Law

The Trial Court Was Required To Issue An Award Based On Whether Mandatory Findings Demonstrated Disparity In Access To Funds And Ability To Pay. In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B347642 (2d Dist., Div. 2 April 14, 2026) (unpublished), Visitation-seeking Grandmother appealed the trial court’s denial of her request for Family Code section

Appeal Sanctions, Ethics, Sanctions, SLAPP: 1/4 DCA Affirms $41,580 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Self-Represented Appellant For Previous Appeal, Imposes $10,000 In Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, And Remands To Lower Court For Award Against Appellant For Fees Incurred By Respondent On Latest Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

In A Masterclass Of What Not To Do On Appeal, Self-Represented Appellant Challenged A Fee Award Ordered Against Him By Rehashing Issues Determined Previously On Appeal, Raising Issues Not Previously Raised, Attacking The Character Of Respondent And His Counsel, And Insulting Court Staff And Judicial Officers. In a case that has dragged on in excess

Interest, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A False Claims Act Case, Postjudgment Interest Ran From The Date Of A Fees Award, Not An Earlier Order Confirming A Settlement

Cases: Interest, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Earlier Order Did Not Qualify As A Money Judgment. Agreeing and disagreeing with some other circuits, the Ninth Circuit in Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., No. 24-6247 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2026) (published) held that postjudgment interest on a False Claims Act attorney’s fees award under 28 U.S.C. section 1961(a) runs from the order awarding

Multipliers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Ninth Circuit Reverses and Remands A Multiplier Award In A False Claims Case, Disagreeing On The Merits Of The Award, But Agreeing That The Reason For The Enhancement Was Not Specific Enough.

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Dissenting Circuit Judge M. Smith concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in determining this case to be “rare and exceptional” and thereby justifying such an enhancement.  In must reading for attorneys seeking positive enhancements for a federal case in the Ninth Circuit, Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., Case No. 34-4103 (9th Cir.

In The News . . . . OpEd Article In April 6, 2026 Issue Of The Orange County Register Shows That PAGA Lawsuits And Settlements Have Soared

In The News

Attorney Payouts Highlighted In The Article. Tom Manzo, founder of the California Business and Industrial Alliance, wrote an OpEd piece, “Will state get serious about labor code lawsuit reform?,” in the April 6, 2026 issue of The Orange County Register.  In it, he mentions that in 2024, the year lawmakers were supposed to enact a

Lodestar, Retainer Agreements: After Lower Court Determined That Retainer Agreement Was Unconscionable And Determined Client Owed Nothing Under A Quantum Meruit Recovery, The Appellate Court Reduced The Contractual Fee Award To Client For Dilatory Conduct

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Retainer Agreements

This Case Shows How, Even On Appeal, Justices Will Try To Balance Equity On Fee Awards. In Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae v. Yakobi, Case No. B338762 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 3, 2026) (unpublished), a client won a fee dispute against her former attorneys, with the lower court finding certain provisions

Family Law: Under A Marital Settlement Agreement’s Prevailing Party Fee Clause, The Family Law Judge Can Consider Financial Needs Of The Litigants, Namely, Family Code Section 2030 And 2032 Factors

Cases: Family Law

Civil Code Section 1717 Lodestar Factors Alone Do Not Restrict The Family Court In Deciding Prevailing Party Contractual Fees. Marriage of Bowman, Case No. B331924 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 3, 2026) (published) held that a family law judge can consider financial needs and ability to pay (Family Code section 2030 and 2032 factors) in

Equity: Two Of Our Readers Obtained An Award Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs For Their Client (A Defendant/Cross-Complainant) As A Condition Of A Superior Court’s Order Equitably Vacating A Default Against A Cross-Defendant

Cases: Equity

This Is One Of The Larger Fee/Costs Award We Have Seen In This Area, But The Fees And Costs Encompassed Several Other Pre-Trial Proceedings On The Subject. Two readers of our blog, Ronald C. Foreman and Ian A. Hansen of Foreman & Brasso in San Francisco, are to be congratulated as well as “hat tipped”

Costs: Prevailing Party’s Cost Memorandum Was Timely Filed After Entry Of Judgment On A Retrial Following An Earlier Granting Of A New Trial Motion

Cases: Costs

Also, Appellant’s Apportionment Argument Based On Relative Successes Had No Factual Analysis, So It Was Rejected. In Mileck v. Mileck, Case No. A170748 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), appellant/non-prevailing party filed a motion to tax costs against the prevailing party, with the lower court only taxing $520 out a requested $29,238.98 in

Tort Of Another: Although It Is Not An Independent Cause Of Action, The Doctrine Could Be Pursued As A Component Of Damages In Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Against Her Broker Relating To A Residential House Purchase

Cases: Tort of Another

Plaintiff’s Prior Loss In An Arbitration Against Seller And Seller’s Broker Did Not Prevent Application Of The Doctrine. Plaintiff buyer of a residential house was not pleased after discovering that the property reeked of cigarette smoke.  She first sued seller and seller’s broker primarily for nondisclosure, and she lost an arbitration against them (naturally incurring

Scroll to Top