Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Sanctions: Sanctions For Missing A Final Status Conference Were Appropriate, But Had To Be Reduced For Calibration To The Actual Expenses For the Missed FSC

Cases: Sanctions

No Huge Dispute, But Appellate Court Only Awarded Sanctions For Direct Expenses Relating To the FSC Violation. Steele v. Paulee Body Shop, Inc., Case No. B344258 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished) shows how a sanctions request needs to be calibrated to expenses incurred on the actual violation, not ancillary expenses which are

Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $3,000 Discovery Sanctions Order Reversed And Remanded For A Lack Of Competent Substantiation

Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

A Generalized Estimate Of Fees Expended On A Discovery Dispute Was Inadequate. In Marriage of Pair, Case No. F089740 (5th Dist. Jan. 29, 2026) (unpublished), a $3,000 sanctions award against ex-wife and her counsel in a discovery dispute was reversed.  It was not reversed on the merits.  Instead, it was reversed and remanded because the

Private Attorney General: Where Plaintiffs Obtained Revisions Under Certain Deceptive Contracts, They Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Of $1.5 Million

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Lost Restitution Claims Under The UCL, But They Were A Catalyst. As any defense attorney knows in public interest or class action cases, a catalyst theory is something to pay close attention to.  It may allow for recovery of private attorney general fees even if the plaintiff ultimately does not receive restitution. Howard v.

Ethics: Although Discovery Sanctions Affirmed In A Family Law Matter, Appellate Court Advises Attorneys Not To Make Character Attacks In Appellate Briefs

Cases: Ethics

It Reminds All Attorneys, Even Younger Ones, To Safeguard Their Reputations—You Have To Preserve Them! No need to post on the specifics of Marriage of Alexander, Case No. A172184 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 27, 2026, posted on Jan. 28, 2026) (unpublished), which affirmed discovery sanctions imposed in a very contentious family law case.  However,

Appealability, Costs: Plaintiffs Previously Dismissing A Case Voluntarily Cannot Attempt To Resurrect Arguments Relating To Prior Nonappealable Orders Through A Subsequent Partially Denied Routine Costs Order

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs

The Costs Order Under Review Was Not Final. This post likely will be of interest to appellate attorneys on appealability issues, but it may guide trial level litigation counsel on what type of routine costs orders will be considered as appealable. In Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc., Case No. C102857 (3d Dist. Jan. 28,

Requests For Admission, Section 998: In Automobile Collision Case, CCP § 998 Offer Was Not Invalid For Requiring Consent By Defense Insurer Carriers, And Costs Of Proof Sanctions Properly Denied To Plaintiff

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

However, The Reasonableness Of The 998 Offer—Not Ruled On By The Lower Court—Had To Be Revisited On Remand. Matthews v. Ryan, Case Nos. B335736 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 28, 2026) (partially published; 998 discussion published, but costs of proof sanctions discussion not published) has two good discussions, one on 998 offers which

Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees:  $33,712.91 Fee Award To Prevailing Party Neighbor Was Affirmed In A Complicated Civil Harassment Matter

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

$650 Hourly Rate For 15-Year Attorney And $450 For A Paralegal Were Found Reasonable In A Contentious Santa Clara County Case. Two neighbors had very bad experiences with each other, with one neighbor obtaining a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) and being awarded $33,712.91 in prevailing party attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 against the

Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $599,370 Attorney’s Fees Award Under A Settlement Agreement Confirmed Because Challenging Party Waived An Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement, Miscellaneous

Case Also Has A Good Discussion Of Trial Court Retention Of Jurisdiction To Enforce A Settlement After The 1993 Amendment To CCP § 664.6. Hutchinson v. Lewis Towing 2, Inc., Case No. F088314 (5th Dist. Jan. 27, 2026) (unpublished) has a good discussion on two issues:  (1) retention of jurisdiction against dismissed defendants under CCP

Deadlines, Lodestar, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: In Probate Quabble, $63,958.75 To A Prevailing Party For Appeal Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Payment By Appellant Did Not Waive Appeal Rights; Trial Court Implicitly Extended Fee Motion Filing Deadline Due To Docketing Issues. In Skytte v. Skytte, Case No. G064930 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished), a probate dispute among certain family members may be approaching a close after an award of appellate attorney’s fees of

Section 998: Assignee Mother Of Claims Bound Her Assignor Son To Acceptance Of A 998 Offer Such That Son Could Not Bring Another Suit Against 998 Offeror

Cases: Section 998

Lack Of Standing And Res Judicata Drove The Conclusion That The Acceptance Was Final On The Dispute. Burke v. Benworth Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. G064478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished) is an interesting case which confirms that an accepted and paid CCP § 998 offer by an assignee will divest the

Scroll to Top