Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Requests for Admission, Sanctions: 1/3 DCA Remands Trial Court’s Denial Of RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions As An Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Requests for Admission

Estate of Alders, Case No. A171324 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished) examines the diligence required from both litigants and superior courts to secure costs-of-proof sanctions for unreasonable denial of RFAs under CCP § 2033.420(a). There, a will contest proponent lost, via a summary judgment and trial, all of his claims, with the

Arbitration, Celebrities: In A 2-1 Split Opinion, The 2/7 DCA Holds That A Law Firm Prevailing In A MFAA Arbitration Was Not The Prevailing Party For Purposes Of Fees/Costs In That Proceeding Because It Waived The Argument In Front Of A CAA Arbitrator And The Superior Court Could Discretionarily Deny Fees Based On The Arbitrator Determining There Was No Prevailing Party In Arbitration Award Confirmation Proceedings

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Celebrities

Dissenting Justice Saw Things Differently: Superior Court Had To Independently Determine MFAA Award Issue Or Remand To The Arbitrator To Decide. Allan Law Group, P.C. v. Stewart, Case No. B333681 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) involves an interesting intersection between Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) and California Arbitration Act (CAA) principles where

Allocation, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Could Make Allocation Of Fees Between Contract/Tort Claims, But It Erred In Not Allowing Opposing Party To Review/Contest A Supplemental Declaration From The Fee Claimant To Support The Final Fee Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

The Matter Is Remanded To Look At A Restudy Of The Supplemental Declaration. Due process is alive and well in the attorney’s fees area, as Tres Caminos, LP v. MGP XI US Properties LLC, Case No. D085539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2026) (unpublished) demonstrates.  It also shows the broad discretion given to a

Private Attorney General: $165,072.50 Attorney’s Fees Award On CEQA Win To Prevailing Litigant Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Housing Accountability Act Standards Can Be Factored Into The Equation, With Trade Union Affiliations Not Showing It Made A Difference On The Financial Cost/Benefit Factor. In Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility v. City of Inglewood, Case No. B345195 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 19, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner won a CEQA challenge based on Housing Accountability

Sanctions: First District Court Of Appeal Publishes Opinion Informing In Pro Per Litigants That They Cannot Use And Are Subject For Sanctions When Relying On AI Hallucinations

Cases: Sanctions

This Case Builds On Cases Applicable To Attorneys, But Extends The Prohibition To In Pro Per Litigants. In Sheerer v. Panas, Case No. A171804 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 19, 2026) (partially published; AI discussion published), the appellate court made clear that the recent California case authority which prohibits AI hallucinations equally applies to in

Costs, Deadlines, POOF!: Although Plaintiff Won On The Merits, Substantial Fee Recovery and Routine Costs Recovery Were Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: POOF!

Fees Were Not Allowable Without A Fees Motion; Costs Were Not Allowable Because Failure To Use Judicial Council Worksheet Gave No Basis For A Conclusion On Whether The Costs Were Reasonable, In Response To Defendant’s Motion To Tax Costs. Pelloni v. Mirshahi, Case Nos. B336950 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished)

Costs, Deadlines, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CHRO Prevailing Party On Modification Request And Appeal Work On Certain Orders Was Entitled To The Lower Court’s Fee Recovery

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of Costs Was Filed. In litigation which has gone on for a while and generated several appeals, the dust may have finally settled with the appellate court opinion in George v.

Liens For Attorney Fees: Third District Holds That A Single Declaratory Relief Action Against Both The Clients And Competing Attorney Lien Claimant Is A Permissible Way To Enforce Attorney Lien Claims On Settlement Or Judgment Proceeds

Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees

Second Attorney Obtaining A Recovery Does Not Have To Wait For Clients’ Former Attorney To Bring A Separate Individual Action Against The Clients. In Jacobs v. Papez, Case No. C100761 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2026) (published), which involved dueling claims by two attorneys to enforce lien rights against clients’ settlement, the Third District held “that

Family Law: Marriage of Hoch Opinion Now Published

Cases: Family Law

Case Held That Not Stipulating To Legal Separation On Religious Grounds And Not Particularizing Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Request Led To A Reversal. On February 20, 2026, we posted on Marriage of Hoch, Case No. G063467 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), which held that Family Code section 271 sanctions were not

Scroll to Top