Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Private Attorney General: Fee Award Denied To CEQA Plaintiffs After Remand Of A Prior Published Opinion Reversing A Fee Denial And Remanding For A Restudy

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Failed To Meet Their Ultimate Burden Of Showing The Litigation Was A Catalyst For What Happened Relating To The WaterFix Project. In an earlier opinion, the Third District reversed the denial of an attorney’s fees award to CEQA litigants proceeding on a catalyst theory under CCP § 1021.5, determining that it could not be […]

Partition:  Litigant’s Failure To Appeal Interlocutory Partition Judgment Means That It Could Not Change A 50/50 Split Of Fees/Costs

Cases: Partition

However, Litigant’s Appeal Of A Subsequent Judgment Where An Incorrect Allocation Was Made Could Be Appealed. The next case bears an important reminder to litigants and their attorneys: interlocutory partition judgments are expressly appealable under CCP § 904.1(a)(9). That reality led to a dismissal of appeal challenging the 50/50 allocation for failure to timely appeal

Private Attorney General:  Where Plaintiff Student’s Fraud/Negligence Verdicts Vindicated Primarily Her Personal Interests, CCP § 1021.5 Fees Correctly Were Denied

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

No Evidence That Other Students Were Exposed To Activities Of Which She Complained. In Stallo v. Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist., Case No. E081215 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 5, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff student discovered someone submitted false information to obtain federal monetary relief for her, with plaintiff returning the money and requesting defendants

Family Law:  Ex-Wife, Losing DVRA Proceeding Involving Children Of The Marriage, Will Have A Substantial Attorney’s Fees Order Assessed In Favor Of Ex-Husband

Cases: Family Law

One $42,169.75 Component Of The Fee Award Was Remanded For Restudy, With the Remainder Of The $204,682.97 Award Affirmed, Although It Could Be Offset By Amounts Ex-Husband Owes To Ex-Wife. Family law proceedings can be messy.  Domestic violence (DVRA) proceedings often are brought, with the nonprevailing party facing exposure for fees and costs under certain

Discovery, Sanctions: $25,000 In Discovery Sanctions Against Ex-Wife, Based On Ex-Husband’s Success In Not Having To Answer 90% Of Certain Requests, Were Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Various Challenges, Including Fee Substantiation Challenges, Rejected On Appeal. In Malinowski v. Martin, Case No. A167576 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 4, 2025) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed a $25,000 discovery sanctions award in favor of ex-husband, who predominantly won by having not to respond to about 90% of ex-wife’s discovery requests.  Her principal challenges

Appeal Sanctions:  $6,000 In Appeal Sanctions Payable To The Appeals Court Clerk Was The Order For Filing A Frivolous Appeal Based On Directly Contradicting A Different Position Taken Before The Trial Court

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Sanctions Denied To Respondent; However, Appellate Court Directed That The Lower Court Award Full Appellate Fees On Remand, As Long As They Are Reasonable. Orange County Superior Court Judge Bancroft, sitting by assignment, has authored a couple of decisions on sanctions, the latest being Meena v. Schroeder, Case No. G063849 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec.

Equity, Section 1717: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Losing Reformation Cross-Claim, Where A Contractual Fee Shifting Provision Was Involved, Properly Assessed With An Award Of $547,587 In Attorney’s Fees To Two Prevailing Cross-Complainants

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reformation Cross-Claim Was “On The Contract,” Apportionment Was Unnecessary, And Awarding Against Cross-Defendant Only Was No Abuse Of Discretion. Modern civil litigation is an expensive, draining process, whether at the state or federal levels.  Where there is fee shifting at play, it becomes even more risky for litigants, as demonstrated by Favilli v. Tung, Case

Insurance, Section 998:  Insurance Concerns Of Carriers, Although A Consideration, Are Not Ones Which Should Lead A Litigant To Reject A Section 998 Offer Outright

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

Carriers Can Protect Themselves, With the Offeree Needing To Press A Carrier To Help Accept A Good Faith 998 Offer. Insurance considerations are very important at all stages of a case, including mediation.  But they are no less crucial in evaluation of CCP § 998 offers, as the next case shows, because they can result

Employment: DLSE Can Impose Triple Civil Penalties For Unpaid Wage Judgments 180 Days After The Appeal Period Expires On Employers . . . .

Cases: Employment

Plus Employees, the Labor Commissioner, And Public Prosecutors Are Entitled To Mandatory Fees And Costs For Judgment Enforcement Efforts Under SB 261, Effective January 1, 2026. Employers who received adverse wage/compensation judgments in Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) proceedings now face civil penalties and mandatory fee/costs awards unless they satisfy or reach an accord

Appeal Sanctions: Attorney Guilty Of Using AI Hallucinations Had His AOB Stricken, Was Sanctioned $7,500 Payable To The Appeals Court, And Allowed To File A New, Corrected AOB Within 10 Days

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Dismissal Of The Appeal For This Transgression Was Too Harsh. We have previously blogged on Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 445 and Schlichter v. Kennedy, Case No. E083744 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 17, 2025 (also aligned with People v. Alvarez, 114 Cal.App.5th 1115), where appellate courts sanctioned attorneys for

Scroll to Top