Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

POOF!, Section 1717: Because Plaintiff’s Declaratory Relief Action Was Moot, The Ensuing $165,000 Fee Award Under Section 1717 Went POOF! As A Matter Of Law

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Should Have Dismissed The Case, Not Enter Judgment In Plaintiff’s Favor. In Currency Corp. v. The Pullman Group LLC, Case Nos. B340592 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), a long-running battle involving enforceability of a contract assigning royalties to defendants, the lower court entered a declaratory relief judgment in

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $6,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Respondent In CHRO Proceeding Was No Abuse Of Discretion Under CCP § 527.6

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Respondent’s Counsel Discounted His Fees; And, While Inability to Pay Is Not A 527.6 Factor, The Lower Court Did Take It Into Account By Allowing The Fee Award Payments To Be Made Over 30 Months. In Naeini v. Leuchter, Case No. B341481 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner lost a civil harassment

Tort Of Another: First District Confirms That This Doctrine Does Not Extend To Fees Expended In Suing A Direct Tortfeasor Where The Defendant Had An Adverse Fee Award In The Underlying Action

Cases: Tort of Another

A Third Party Had To Be Involved, Not The Case. Guinnane Construction Co. v. Chess, Case No. A172999 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 26, 2026) (published) confirmed that the tort of another doctrine does not apply against a tortfeasor beyond fees incurred in prosecuting or defending the action with the third party, but it does

Homeowner Associations, POOF!: In A Case Involving Two Homeowners, 4/1 DCA’s Majority Opinion Struck An Attorney’s Fees Award Completely Because It Was Premature And Plaintiff Was Not The Prevailing Party

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: POOF!

Dissent Disagreed, Wanting To Remand The Matter For Determining A Reasonable Fee Award–$138,875 In Fees Went POOF! Based On The Majority Opinion. In an interesting 2-1 decision, the 4/1 DCA in Senseman v. Mimi Real Properties, Case No. D084658 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished) affirmed a merits determination but struck a $138,875

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Where Defendant Minimally Prevailed On A Declaratory Relief Claim But County Avoided $6 Million Exposure On A Negligent Misrepresentation Count, County Was Entitled To Over $800,000 In Attorney’s Fees And A Little Under $24,000 In Costs Under A Contractual Fee Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Under A Broad Contractual Fees Clause, The Lower Court Can Determine The Prevailing Party—Much To The Chagrin Of A Losing Party. We have posted for years as bloggers.  We are not judges, nor pretend to be.  But we can say certain themes prevail in many cases we have posted on: (1) broad contractual fee clauses

Costs: Where Party Moving To Tax Appellate Costs Demonstrated That Party Paid Some Expenses, The Burden Shifted To The Costs-Claiming Party To Provide Receipts

Cases: Costs

The Motion To Tax Costs Did Shift The Burden Back To The Costs Claimant—Not Met. In Deen v. Kreditor, Case No. G064426 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2026) (unpublished), a prevailing party on a prior appeal filed a costs memorandum for appellate costs totaling $1,184.65.  The losing side filed a motion to tax appellate

Retainer Agreements: Plaintiff Disputing Allocation To Her As Client And To Her Attorneys Lost The Fight Because The Retainer Agreement Had A Provision Stating That No Contingency Arrangements Applied To Settlements Where Individual Recovery And Fee Recovery To Counsel Were Separately Negotiated

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Plaintiff Herself Was A Sophisticated Litigant, With The Lower And Appellate Courts Finding The Retainer Agreement Was Unambiguous In The Proper Allocation. Brinkman v. Jane Doe, Case No. A173377 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 24, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff disputed what portion of a settlement negotiated with two different bank defendants was

Arbitration, Section 1717: Where Arbitration Respondent Won A Dismissal Of An Arbitration Award Based On Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Respondent Was Not Entitled To Fees But Was Entitled To Routine Costs

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717

Fee Issues Depended On Further Actions.                In O’Leary v. Jones III, Case No. D085327 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 24, 2026) (published), the Court of Appeal confirmed a denial of attorney’s fees to an arbitration respondent, who was never joined in a court action before the matter was ordered to arbitration such that the

Costs, Requests For Admission, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A Complex Water Diversion/Trespass Case, 2/7 DCA Affirms Costs Award To Defendant City, Affirms Denial Of Supplemental Fees And Costs To City Under CCP §§ 1038 & 2033.420, And Reverses Costs Award To Defendant Water Committee Based On Reversing A Judgment In Its Favor

Cases: Costs, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Acting Presiding Justice Segal Penned The 3-0 Opinion On Various Merits, Costs, And Fee Issues In A 74-Page Opinion. In Beecham v. City of Azusa, Case No. B33843 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), deceased trustee, through a substituted personal presentative, sued two City entities (City), an irrigation company, and a water committee

Probate, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7(b)(1) Sanctions Affirmed Against A Probate Litigant Filing A New Contesting Petition For An Improper Purpose

Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

CCP § 128.7(b)(2) Represented Litigant Exception Did Not Apply To (b)(1) Sanctions, Resulting In An Upholding Of A $25,013 Sanctions Award Against Losing Trustee. In Gerald C. Fox Foundation v. Fox, Case No. H053043 (6th Dist. Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), CCP § 128.7(b)(1) sanctions were imposed against a trustee who filed a new trust petition

Scroll to Top