Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Private Attorney General: CCP § 1021 Catalyst Fee Recovery Not Available To Plaintiffs Where The Other Side Voluntarily Provided Relief Only After Plaintiffs Had Lost Relief In A Prior Merits Judgment

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Case Found That Plaintiffs Could Not Meet The Successful Parties Element, Even Under A Catalyst Theory. In Physicians for Social Responsibility – L.A. v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Case No. C100487 (3d Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (published), the appellate court affirmed a denial of private attorney general fees, under a catalyst theory, where the

Prevailing Party: Where Plaintiff Through A Settlement Obtained A Rescission And Partial Restitution Of Prejudgment Interest, The Lower Court Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Under A Contractual Fees Clause Because A Mixed Result Occurred

Cases: Prevailing Party

$800,000 Fee Request Denied, With The Appellate Court Observing That The Result Could Have Gone The Other Way—But Discretion Is Involved When One Side Does Not Knock It Completely Out Of The Park. Hakim-Baba v. Desai, Case No. H050787 (6th Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (unpublished) was a messy case where plaintiff primarily sought to rescind

Arbitration, Homeowner Associations: Given That Homeowner Claims Arose From Governing Documents, An Adverse $254,815.53 Fee/Costs Award Was Affirmed After HOA Prevailed At An Arbitration

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Homeowner Associations

A Broad By-Law Fees/Cost Clause, The Davis-Stirling Act, And JAMS Cost Provision Amply Justified The Arbitration Award Which Was Confirmed As A Judgment. The next post illustrates a familiar ending story in many homeowner-HOA disputes, whether brough in court or in arbitration:  a prevailing party will face the prospect of obtaining substantial recoupment of attorney’s

Equity, Section 998, Settlement: Trial Court’s Refusal To Vacate A Judgment Based On 998 Offers Allegedly Not Consented To By Plaintiff’s Counsel Was Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Settlement

Lower Court Did Not Evaluate Under Inherent Authority Of The Court Standards, So A Revisit Was In Order. In Chen v. Asian Square, Inc., Case No. H052309 (6th Dist. Feb. 25, 2026) (unpublished), within hours of defendant accepting plaintiffs’ CCP § 998 offers, plaintiffs’ counsel notified defendant that plaintiffs had not provided informed consent for

Arbitration: Another Post-Hohenshelt Trial Court Decision On Missed Payment And Sanctions Was Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Arbitration

Trial Judge Needed To Assess Culpability And Whether Missed Payment Was Excusable. In Aqua Blue Constr., Inc. v. Goshorn, Case No. B338632 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 24, 2026) (unpublished), an appellate court—post-Hohenshelt—has reversed and remanded a case to see if the party making a missed arbitration payment under CCP § 1281.9 was culpable and

Bankruptcy, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Non-Debtor And Debtor Were Not Subject To The Automatic Stay Where A Non-Debtor Was Involved And Debtor Was The Only Prosecuting The Case With An Adverse Fee Award

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Appellate Court Did Remind Counsel They Need To Notify Courts About Bankruptcy Filings Which Might Implicate Whether The Stay Is In Place. Navellier v. Putnam, Case No. A172077 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 2, 2026 unpublished; published on Feb. 23, 2026; posted on Feb. 24, 2026) [bankruptcy discussion published; fee award entitlement and lodestar analysis

Lodestar: Ninth Circuit Determines That Size Of The Law Firm Alone Should Not Compel A Reduction In An Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Lodestar

The Winning Attorneys In A 4-Man Firm Had An Impressive Robison-Patmas Act Litigation Record. In L.A. Int’l Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., Case Nos. 24-3776 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2026) (published), a 4-man firm obtained a substantial liability determination and permanent injunction on behalf Wholesales in a Robinson-Patman Act case, with the

Section 1717: Settlement Agreement With Fees Clause, Incorporated Into A Subsequent Judgment, Does Allow For Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717

Fifth District So Holds In A Contentious Matter. The Fifth District, in Wash v. Wash, Case Nos. F084442/F084443 (5th Dist. Feb. 23,, 2026) (unpublished), confirmed that a contractual fees clause in a settlement agreement, when properly incorporated into a subsequent judgment, can give rise to a fee recovery for a prevailing party under Civil Code

Reasonableness Of Fees: Court Of Appeal Reversed And Remanded A 50% Haircut For Further Explanation Where There Was A Civil Code § 1717 Basis For Fees

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

There Needed To Be More Explanation For The Fee Reduction. Unfortunately, there is no bright-line rule relating to lower court fee “haircuts” at the state court level, although some civil rights decision may suggest there is.  On the federal level, the Moreno from the Ninth Circuitsays that a fee haircut over 10% needs an explanation. 

Scroll to Top