Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Allocation, Block Billing, Hourly Rates, Lodestar, Trade Secrets: Seattle Federal District Judge Awarded Prevailing Plaintiff Parties In Trade Secrets Act Case About $1.25 Million In Fees And A Little Over $42,000 In Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Block Billing, Cases: Hourly Rates, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Trade Secrets

Small Reductions Were Made, And No Allocation Was Required. Under both Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, there are attorney’s fees shifting provisions in favor of a prevailing plaintiff proving that the trade secret was willfully and maliciously misappropriated.  These fee entitlements were operative in Silver Fern Chemical, Inc.

POOF!, Trade Secrets: $40 Million Jury Verdict And Over $17 Million Fee Award In Defend Trade Secrets Act Case Went POOF! On Appeal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Trade Secrets

The Reason Was That The Lower Court Prejudicially Misallocated The Burden Of Dis-Proof To The Defense. Misallocation of the burden of proof, if not harmless error, can lead to disastrous results.  That was the case in Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, 181 F.4th 988 (9th Cir. July 14, 2026) [published].  There, the

Civil Rights, Costs: Lower Court’s Entry Of $15,397.96 In Routine Costs Against FEHA Non-Prevailing Plaintiff Had To Be Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

Lower Court Made No Predicate Finding That The Action Was Frivolous, With Boilerplate Language In Judgment Not Showing Express Findings Were Made To That Effect. San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries, LLC, Case No. A175977 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 2, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where a FEHA non-prevailing plaintiff lost a summary judgment motion

Nonsignatories: Property Manager Did Not Face Fee Exposure Under Contractual Lease Clause Only “Between The Parties”

Cases: Nonsignatories

Matter Goes On Between Landlord And Tenant, Although Tenant Prevailed, Based On A Partial Appellate Reversal. In Wilshire West Medical Tower, LLC v. Karimi, Case Nos. B347841 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2026) (unpublished), tenants defensed a landlord and property manager, even though the appellate court reversed on some grounds.  The lower

Special Fee Shifting Statutes (Ordinance): Prevailing Party City Of South Gate’s $99,370.50 Fee Award On A Public Nuisance Cross-Claim Under A First Amended Cross-Complaint Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

South Gate Did Not Need To Pray For Fees In The Initial Cross-Complaint Not Including A Public Nuisance Cross-Claim—The First Amended Cross-Complaint Was The Trigger, Which Did Include A Public Nuisance Claim And Prayer For Fee Recovery. After winning a summary adjudication motion on a First Amended Cross-Complaint including a public nuisance cross-claim (which was

Sanctions: 2/1 DCA Agrees With Other Divisions Of The Second District That A CCP § 128.7 Unfiled Sanctions Motion Must Have A Motion Hearing Date To Be Valid

Cases: Sanctions

It Acknowledges A Contrary First District Decision, But Agrees With The Result Reached By Other Sister Divisions Of The Second District. In Max v. 8E6 Corp., Case No. B344025 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2026) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA agreed with its sister divisions in Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank, 179 Cal.App.4th 535,

Family Law: Ex-Wife’s Failure To Prevail In Contempt Proceedings Did Not Bar Family Code § 271 Sanctions Awards To Ex-Husband

Cases: Family Law

The Statutes Serves Separate Policy Purposes, Such That They Can Be Concurrently Applied In Dissolution Proceedings. Arora v. Arora, Case No. D086321 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2026) (unpublished) involved a clash between two schemes, contempt proceedings and Family Code section 271 sanctions, with ex-wife arguing that that her failure to prevail in earlier

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Why Published? Because The Opinion Established That Generic Prevailing Party Statement In A Judgment Does Not Establish Fee Entitlement

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

That Determination Depends On A Future Fee Motion On Whether Entitlement Is Established—Not So, Ultimately In This Case. In WCST Enterprises, LLC v. Ling, Case No. G065236 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 28, 2026) (published), the dispute involved neighbors quarreling over the rights to a parking space in a condominium complex—but essentially was a quiet

Trade Secrets: Texas District Court Judge Issues $15.3 Million Attorney’s Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff In A Defend Trade Secrets Act Case

Cases: Trade Secrets

Plaintiff Won Compensatory Damages Of $168.5 Million, With The Merits Judgment Sustained After SCOTUS Refused To Grant A Certiorari Petition. At the federal level, the Defend Trade Secrets Act has a fee-shifting provision which basically allows a prevailing plaintiff to seek recovery of discretionary attorney’s fees from a district court if the trade secret misappropriation

Ethics, Retainer Agreements: New California Ethics Opinion Under Consideration Addresses Whether “Conversion Clauses” In Contingency Agreements Are Ethically Permissible

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Unfairly Shackling Client On Key Decisions And Unconscionable Arrangements Likely Will Be Under Scrutiny. Although it has not yet been adopted and remains open for public comment, the California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has issued Formal Opinion Interim No. 20-0005. The proposed opinion addresses when “conversion clauses” in California contingency

Scroll to Top