Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Default Judgments:  2/1 DCA Determines In Unpublished Decision That Default Judgment Cannot Include Attorney’s Fees Not Contained In A Complaint And Not Specified In Amount In A Request For Entry of Default

Cases: Default Judgments

This Is Consistent With Our October 21, 2025 Post On A 4/2 DCA Unpublished Opinion To The Same Effect. In Paragon Six, LLC v. Girgis, Case No. B327441 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 31, 2025) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA reversed an attorney’s fees contained in a default judgment because fees were not requested […]

Sanctions: CCP § 128.5(c) Sanctions Properly Imposed For Denied Frivolous Sanctions Motion Where Challenged Motion Could Not Have Been Withdrawn And Unsuccessful Moving Party Had Ample Time To Withdraw Sanctions Motion Way Before The Hearing

Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions Properly Imposed When Raised By Opposing Side In Responsive Papers To Frivolous Motion Under 128.5(c), And Safe Harbor Provision Was Inapplicable. In RH Properties v. McBeth, Case No. B334051 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2025) (unpublished), unique circumstances were involved:  plaintiff obtained appointment of a property receiver, with the other side filing a

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 998, Section 1717:  Attorney’s Fees Properly Denied To Plaintiffs Where Neither Side Prevailed Even Though Both Sides Did Bring “On The Contract” Claims

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

However, Denial Of Costs Awards Were Reversed Based On Improper CCP § 998 Focus; Defendants Being The Costs Prevailing Parties When No One Won; And Errors In Adopting Across-The-Board Reductions For Jointly Represented Parties. Golunova v. Akhromtsev, Case Nos. A167542 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 20, 2025) (unpublished) involved dueling complaints by members

Appealability, Class Actions: Order Denying A Plaintiff’s Request To Be Exempt From Coordinated Proceeding Common Benefit Surcharge By Other Attorneys Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Class Actions

Appellate Court Determines It Is Appealable Under The Collateral Order Doctrine, But Appellant Still Loses On The Merits. In Pruchnik v. JCCP464 Common Benefit Comm., Case No. B330338 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 17, 2025) (published), plaintiff, in a coordinated proceeding involving Toyota unintended acceleration cases with relates issues, settled his case but brought a

Appeal Sanctions:  AI Errors Continue To Generate Appellate Sanctions

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Trending In California Appellate Cases … Check Reliance On AI Research. There are studies and other empirical feedback which show attorneys are increasingly relying on AI research and feedback for case analysis.  That is fine, but the message from various courts throughout the nation (which you can access over the Internet) and California appellate cases

Appeal Sanctions:  Sanctions Request Remanded, Not Being The Appeal Was Totally Without Merit, But Because Appellant Violated California Rules Of Court

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

That Led to A Remand, Because Appellant Did So.               This appeal sanctions case has a twist.  Even though finding that the appeal was not totally without merit, the 4/3 DCA—in a 3-0 opinion authored by Orange County Superior Court Judge Bancroft (sitting by assignment)—did believe a remand was in order because appellant violated numerous California

Family Law:  Lower Court’s Failure To Make Explicit Findings On Family Code Section 2030 Factors, Plus Reliance On Irrelevant Ones, Resulted In A Reversal/Remand

Cases: Family Law

General Ability To Pay Findings Were Not Sufficient.               In Manning v. Manning, Case No. D084718 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 12, 2025) (unpublished), a contentious divorce case with lots of activity, a lower court—mainly out of frustration—denied ex-wife’s request for a Family Code section 2030 fee award of $200,000 for fees and $50,000 in expert

Settlement:  For Anyone Crafting A Stipulated Judgment With A Monetary Recovery, Read This Decision—Address Fee And Cost Recovery Specifically

Cases: Settlement

Silence Means That Cost And Fee Recovery Can Be Obtained For A Breach If the Underlying Agreements Had Fees/Costs-Shifting Clauses. Lin v. A-Z Essential Pharmaceutical Inc., Case No. B344056 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 12, 2025) (unpublished) is a reminder for litigants and their attorneys to take care in crafting stipulated judgments where the litigants

Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, SLAPP:  SLAPP Fee Award, At Hourly Rates Higher Than Billed Rates, Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: SLAPP

Lower Discounted Rates Are Not Preclusive On Lodestar Fee Award By Lower Court, With Laffey Matrix Not Having To Be Blindly Followed. O’Hill Capital v. Phillips, Case Nos. G063268 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2025) (unpublished), involved a SLAPP grant to defendants, which triggered a mandatory fee award—if the fees requested were

Arbitration:  Hohenshelt, The Granddaddy Case, Remanded To See If There Was A Plausible Excuse For Defendant Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay Arbitration Expenses And Whether The Delay Caused Harm To Plaintiff Employee

Cases: Arbitration

We Predicted That These Cases Would Be Remanded To Have Lower Courts Determine If There Was A Legitimate Excuse For The Delayed Payment.                 Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, Case No. B327524 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 10, 2025) (unpublished) was the granddaddy case which resulted in a California Supreme Court case on employers not making

Scroll to Top