Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Family Law:  Lower Court’s Failure To Make Explicit Findings On Family Code Section 2030 Factors, Plus Reliance On Irrelevant Ones, Resulted In A Reversal/Remand

Cases: Family Law

General Ability To Pay Findings Were Not Sufficient.               In Manning v. Manning, Case No. D084718 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 12, 2025) (unpublished), a contentious divorce case with lots of activity, a lower court—mainly out of frustration—denied ex-wife’s request for a Family Code section 2030 fee award of $200,000 for fees and $50,000 in expert

Settlement:  For Anyone Crafting A Stipulated Judgment With A Monetary Recovery, Read This Decision—Address Fee And Cost Recovery Specifically

Cases: Settlement

Silence Means That Cost And Fee Recovery Can Be Obtained For A Breach If the Underlying Agreements Had Fees/Costs-Shifting Clauses. Lin v. A-Z Essential Pharmaceutical Inc., Case No. B344056 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 12, 2025) (unpublished) is a reminder for litigants and their attorneys to take care in crafting stipulated judgments where the litigants

Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, SLAPP:  SLAPP Fee Award, At Hourly Rates Higher Than Billed Rates, Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: SLAPP

Lower Discounted Rates Are Not Preclusive On Lodestar Fee Award By Lower Court, With Laffey Matrix Not Having To Be Blindly Followed. O’Hill Capital v. Phillips, Case Nos. G063268 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2025) (unpublished), involved a SLAPP grant to defendants, which triggered a mandatory fee award—if the fees requested were

Arbitration:  Hohenshelt, The Granddaddy Case, Remanded To See If There Was A Plausible Excuse For Defendant Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay Arbitration Expenses And Whether The Delay Caused Harm To Plaintiff Employee

Cases: Arbitration

We Predicted That These Cases Would Be Remanded To Have Lower Courts Determine If There Was A Legitimate Excuse For The Delayed Payment.                 Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, Case No. B327524 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 10, 2025) (unpublished) was the granddaddy case which resulted in a California Supreme Court case on employers not making

Discovery, Substantiation Of Fees:  4/3 DCA Decides That Appellate Fees For Upholding Inspection Demand Discovery Sanctions Are Authorized Fee-Shifting

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

However, The Appellate Court Reduces Fees A Bit For Fees On Fees Work By A Higher Billing Attorney And Cautions That The Real Rate Report Has To Be Used With Precision. In Baer v. Tedder, Case Nos. G063642 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2025) (published), the appellate court held that appellate fees

Section 998:  November 2025 Orange County Lawyer Article Surveys The Impact Of K.M. v. Grossmont Union

Cases: Section 998

Message Is “Clarity Is King” In Framing These Offers, Especially Where A Civil Code Section 1542 Release Is Desired By The Offeror.  Rachel E. Lustig, in an article appearing in the November 2025 Orange County Lawyer at pages 46-47entitled “Avoiding The Pitfalls:  What K.M. v. Grossmont Union Teaches About Drafting Enforceable Section 998 Offers,” discusses

Costs, Mediation, Prevailing Party:  Sixth District Reverses And Remands Fee Denial For Further Proceedings Based On Erroneous “Refusal To Mediate” Decision Below

Cases: Costs, Cases: Mediation, Cases: Prevailing Party

It Found That A Putative Prevailing Party’s Reversal Of An Initial Decision to Refuse Mediation Might Entitle That Party To Fee Recovery If The Reversal Was Unequivocal In Nature; However, Costs Were Properly Denied Based On Not Filing A Timely Costs Memorandum. Evleshin v. Meyer, Case No. H051869 (6th Dist. Nov. 6, 2025) (published) involved

Appealability, Probate, Sanctions: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Attorney Fee and Sanctions Orders, But The 2/1 DCA Reversed Them On Appeal When Plaintiff Appealed Trial Court’s Denial Of His Motion To Vacate

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

Defendant Lacked Standing For The Initial Fee Motion It Brought – Nullifying The Order Granting The Motion And Each Subsequent Order Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Comply With Void Initial Fee Order After being fired by Plaintiff trustee, Defendant law firm successfully brought a motion for fees under Probate Code § 17200. When trustee failed

Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness of Fees: 2/3 DCA Reverses And Remands For Reconsideration An Attorney Fees Award Of $83,197.50 – Finding Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Awarded Excessive Fees Unsupported By The Record

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

The Trial Court, Which Is Not Allowed To Rubberstamp An Attorney Fees Request, Failed To Explain Its Reasoning For The Award That Included A $750 Hourly Rate And A 1.5 Positive Multiplier Despite The Lack Of Complexity and Risk Involved In The Case In Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Ramirez, Case No. B342780 (2d

Retainer Agreements: Law Firm Seeking To Recover More Than $1.7 Million In Fees And Costs For Its Representation Of Former Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva Loses Attempt To Enforce Engagement Letter Entered Into With Former Sheriff

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Former Sheriff Had Authority To Select, Not To Retain, Independent Counsel To Represent Him In Writ Petition Filed By County To Challenge Villanueva’s Authority To Settle A Civil Lawsuit Filed By A Terminated Deputy. When the County of Los Angeles sued former Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to

Scroll to Top