Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Employment, Ethics:  $576,000 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Cross-Defendant On FEHA Claim Allowed As An Amendment On The Eve Of Trial Was Affirmed Where The Cross-Complainant Recovered $1.4 Million In Damages

Cases: Employment, Cases: Ethics

Cross-Complainant Sought $1.25 Million In Fees; Fees Were Appropriate Despite The Delay In Adding The FEHA Cross-Claim. This case is interesting to show how procedural rulings to add a claim at trial—such as a FEHA cross-claim—can make or break the affirmance of a subsequent fee award to the prevailing FEHA cross-complainant. Pak v. Rassman, Case

Employment, Prevailing Party:  Employee Winning $11,594.80 In Labor Code Violations Had $163,440 Fee Award Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

Reason Was That The Lower Court Applied The CCP § 1032 Prevailing Party Rigid Test, Rather Than A More Pragmatic Approach Which Governed Statutory Violations. In German v. La Floure, LLC, Case No. D086600 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 10, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff won wage/hour violations against defendants to the tune of $11,594.80 in damages,

Arbitration: Trial Court, On An Arbitration Award Confirmation Petition, Erroneously Included Arbitration Costs Where Arbitrator Did Not Award Them Before Issuance Of The Arbitration Award

Cases: Arbitration

Arbitrator Was The One Who Had To Do So, With The Presumption Being Costs Were Disallowed. Garrett & Tully, P.C. v. Aliso Properties, LLC, Case No. B332463 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 9, 2025) (unpublished) was a situation where a lower court, in an arbitration award confirmation proceeding, awarded costs relating to the arbitration where

Private Attorney General: Fee Award Denied To CEQA Plaintiffs After Remand Of A Prior Published Opinion Reversing A Fee Denial And Remanding For A Restudy

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Failed To Meet Their Ultimate Burden Of Showing The Litigation Was A Catalyst For What Happened Relating To The WaterFix Project. In an earlier opinion, the Third District reversed the denial of an attorney’s fees award to CEQA litigants proceeding on a catalyst theory under CCP § 1021.5, determining that it could not be

Partition:  Litigant’s Failure To Appeal Interlocutory Partition Judgment Means That It Could Not Change A 50/50 Split Of Fees/Costs

Cases: Partition

However, Litigant’s Appeal Of A Subsequent Judgment Where An Incorrect Allocation Was Made Could Be Appealed. The next case bears an important reminder to litigants and their attorneys: interlocutory partition judgments are expressly appealable under CCP § 904.1(a)(9). That reality led to a dismissal of appeal challenging the 50/50 allocation for failure to timely appeal

Private Attorney General:  Where Plaintiff Student’s Fraud/Negligence Verdicts Vindicated Primarily Her Personal Interests, CCP § 1021.5 Fees Correctly Were Denied

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

No Evidence That Other Students Were Exposed To Activities Of Which She Complained. In Stallo v. Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist., Case No. E081215 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 5, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff student discovered someone submitted false information to obtain federal monetary relief for her, with plaintiff returning the money and requesting defendants

Family Law:  Ex-Wife, Losing DVRA Proceeding Involving Children Of The Marriage, Will Have A Substantial Attorney’s Fees Order Assessed In Favor Of Ex-Husband

Cases: Family Law

One $42,169.75 Component Of The Fee Award Was Remanded For Restudy, With the Remainder Of The $204,682.97 Award Affirmed, Although It Could Be Offset By Amounts Ex-Husband Owes To Ex-Wife. Family law proceedings can be messy.  Domestic violence (DVRA) proceedings often are brought, with the nonprevailing party facing exposure for fees and costs under certain

Discovery, Sanctions: $25,000 In Discovery Sanctions Against Ex-Wife, Based On Ex-Husband’s Success In Not Having To Answer 90% Of Certain Requests, Were Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Various Challenges, Including Fee Substantiation Challenges, Rejected On Appeal. In Malinowski v. Martin, Case No. A167576 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 4, 2025) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed a $25,000 discovery sanctions award in favor of ex-husband, who predominantly won by having not to respond to about 90% of ex-wife’s discovery requests.  Her principal challenges

Appeal Sanctions:  $6,000 In Appeal Sanctions Payable To The Appeals Court Clerk Was The Order For Filing A Frivolous Appeal Based On Directly Contradicting A Different Position Taken Before The Trial Court

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Sanctions Denied To Respondent; However, Appellate Court Directed That The Lower Court Award Full Appellate Fees On Remand, As Long As They Are Reasonable. Orange County Superior Court Judge Bancroft, sitting by assignment, has authored a couple of decisions on sanctions, the latest being Meena v. Schroeder, Case No. G063849 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec.

Scroll to Top