Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Equity, Section 1717: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Losing Reformation Cross-Claim, Where A Contractual Fee Shifting Provision Was Involved, Properly Assessed With An Award Of $547,587 In Attorney’s Fees To Two Prevailing Cross-Complainants

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reformation Cross-Claim Was “On The Contract,” Apportionment Was Unnecessary, And Awarding Against Cross-Defendant Only Was No Abuse Of Discretion. Modern civil litigation is an expensive, draining process, whether at the state or federal levels.  Where there is fee shifting at play, it becomes even more risky for litigants, as demonstrated by Favilli v. Tung, Case

Insurance, Section 998:  Insurance Concerns Of Carriers, Although A Consideration, Are Not Ones Which Should Lead A Litigant To Reject A Section 998 Offer Outright

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

Carriers Can Protect Themselves, With the Offeree Needing To Press A Carrier To Help Accept A Good Faith 998 Offer. Insurance considerations are very important at all stages of a case, including mediation.  But they are no less crucial in evaluation of CCP § 998 offers, as the next case shows, because they can result

Employment: DLSE Can Impose Triple Civil Penalties For Unpaid Wage Judgments 180 Days After The Appeal Period Expires On Employers . . . .

Cases: Employment

Plus Employees, the Labor Commissioner, And Public Prosecutors Are Entitled To Mandatory Fees And Costs For Judgment Enforcement Efforts Under SB 261, Effective January 1, 2026. Employers who received adverse wage/compensation judgments in Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) proceedings now face civil penalties and mandatory fee/costs awards unless they satisfy or reach an accord

Appeal Sanctions: Attorney Guilty Of Using AI Hallucinations Had His AOB Stricken, Was Sanctioned $7,500 Payable To The Appeals Court, And Allowed To File A New, Corrected AOB Within 10 Days

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Dismissal Of The Appeal For This Transgression Was Too Harsh. We have previously blogged on Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 445 and Schlichter v. Kennedy, Case No. E083744 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 17, 2025 (also aligned with People v. Alvarez, 114 Cal.App.5th 1115), where appellate courts sanctioned attorneys for

Default Judgments:  2/1 DCA Determines In Unpublished Decision That Default Judgment Cannot Include Attorney’s Fees Not Contained In A Complaint And Not Specified In Amount In A Request For Entry of Default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

Scroll to Top