Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Winning Tort Claims, But Losing One Contract Claim Against Some Defendants, Was Not Exposed To Attorney’s Fees By Two Set Of Defendants

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Prevailing Party

In Fact, Because He Prevailed, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fees Against One Set Of Defendants, But Not A Nonsignatory Because He Only Brought Tort Claims. Appeals, although the odds are against them, can sometimes result in a reversal of fortune.   That did occur in Moses v. Rok Drinks, Ltd., Case No. B339392 (2d Dist., Div.

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation: Broad Fees Clause Allowed Law Firm To Recover Both Trial and Appellate Fees For Prevailing In An Action/Appeal Attempting To Void An Arbitration Agreement

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Total Fees to Law Firm Came To $416,680.30. Fee-shifting can be a game changer in litigation, including litigation relating to an arbitration where the fees clause is broad in nature.  Plaintiff client learned that lesson all too well in litigation against his former counsel, as demonstrated by Milder v. Holley, Case No. B331152 (2d Dist.,

Allocation, Homeowner Associations, Lodestar: Plaintiff Replacement Trustee Losing Condo Fire Repair Lawsuit Under Governing Documents And Interrelated Tort Claims Properly Assessed With Attorney’s Fees In Favor Of HOA And Condo Manager

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Lodestar

$102,547.50 Was The Award, With No Apportionment Necessary And With It Being Reasonable In Nature. LaPay v. The Fairways Homeowner’s Assn., Case No. E082827 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 23, 2026) (unpublished) is a case showing how an HOA acted reasonably in making fire-related damage repairs when it could not locate an owner and demonstrating

Section 1717: Illegal Contract, Void From The Start, Did Not Allow Plaintiff Prevailing Solely On a Negligent Misrepresentation Claim To Garner Fees

Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Determined Both Parties “In Pari Delicto,” So No Fees Were Warranted. The Fourth District, Division Three, in S&S Engineering and Construction v. Ashby Enterprises, LLC, Case No. G062701 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), decided that a lower court’s denial of fees to a plaintiff winning on one negligent misrepresentation claim

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar: Lower Court’s 87.6% Reduction In A Lemon Law Fee Request Was Reversed As An Abuse Of Discretion Based On The Record On The Lodestar Analysis

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar

Awarding $15,000 In A Lemon Law Case Requesting $81,455.83 In Fees/Costs Was Not Fair And Required A Revisit. In Rosales v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. G063792 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), a settlement was reached in a lemon law case where attorney’s fees became the important issue at the back

Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Undertaking: Prevailing Defendant In A Derivative Lawsuit—After Losing A Bond Motion–Can Seek Trial And Appellate Costs, Not Limited By The $50,000 Bonding Amount Specified In Corporations Code Section 17709.02

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Undertaking

Section 17709.02 Does Not Trump The CCP § 1032 Trial Routine Costs Statute Or The CRC 8.891 Appellate Routine Costs Provision. In Barrios v. Chraghchian, Case No. B341773 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 20, 2026) (published), a defendant brought a bond motion under Corporations Code section 17709.02 to have a derivative lawsuit plaintiff furnish security

Arbitration: $220,817 Arbitration Fee Award Is Affirmed In Favor Of One Plaintiff, Because Moncharsh Did Not Show A Basis For Arbitral Reversal

Cases: Arbitration

Lower Court’s Denial Of Post-Judgment Vacatur Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff/Employee Was Justified. In Fishman v. Advisors LLP, Case No. B334179 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 15, 2026) (unpublished), a couple of former lawyers/nonequity partners sued their former law firm for compensation and over the validity of a non-compete clause.  There were various proceedings; however, one

Allocation, Section 1717: Appellate Court Affirms A Substantial Fee And Costs Award In A Mixed Contract/Tort Case Based On Santisas

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Case Drew Three Opinions, A Concurrence Finding 70% Defense Allocation For Tort Claims Was Reasonable, But With A Dissenting Justice Finding More Delineation Between Contract/Tort Claims Was In Order. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) [our Leading Case #6] was substantively upfront and center in National Merchants Assn. v. Commercial Bank of California, Case

Scroll to Top