Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717:  Attorney’s Fees Award In Favor Of Non-Signatory, Alter Ego Targets Was Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

On Remand, Only Contract Claim Work Could be Awarded, Not On Non-Contract Claims—Lower Court Vested With Discretion To Allocate On Remand. McCain v. Edwards, Case No. C101256 (3d Dist. May 14, 2026) (unpublished) is a very contested case where, eventually, some non-signatory, alter ego targets evaded exposure where the contract between the predicate signatory and […]

Discovery, Sanctions: Although Spoliation Issues Sanction Order Was Reversed, $16,000 Discovery Monetary Sanctions Were Proper Based On Motion Compelling Further Discovery Responses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Although Spoliation and Motion To Compel Issues Were Inextricably Intertwined, Motion To Compel Ruling Supported The Sanctions Award Where The Claimed Expenses Were Not Allocated To Any Specific Relief. In Glickman v. Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, Case No. G065111 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 13, 2026) (unpublished), our local Santa Ana Court, in a 3-0

Section 1717: Court Of Appeal Affirms Fee Award, Confirming That A Notice Of Motion For An Attorney’s Fee Request Does Not Have To Specifically Recite The Contract Which Was A Predicate For The Fee Motion

Cases: Section 1717

General Reference To The Parties’ Contract Sufficed. Yellow Dog Holdings, LLC v. Regions Bank, Case No. G064613 (4th Dist., Div. 3) (May 12, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Sanchez, did deal with a procedural issue we have seen frequently argued.  The notice of motion for attorney’s fees referenced the parties’ contract, but it did not

Allocation, Construction: Where Contractor Did Not Prevail On Contractual Provisions But Did Prevail On Prompt Payment Statutes, Lower Court’s Decision To Award Only A Quarter Of Requested Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction

Goes To Show You That Discretionary Calls On Allocation Are Oft Times Affirmed On Appeal. K.G. Mullen, Inc. v. Kirakosian, Case No. B322602 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2026) (unpublished) primarily involved a construction “change order” dispute between a contractor and residential owner over construction of a steel deck at owner’s house.  After a

Appealability, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Because Order Taking A Civil Harassment Petition Off Calendar Was Not An Appealable Order, Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defense Had To Be Remanded To See If There Was A Prevailing Party

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Whether A Prevailing Party Even Exists Should Be Determined By The Lower Court, But The Fee Motion Was Timely. In Raheb v. Williamson, Case No. B343023 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 4, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner sought to obtain a temporary restraining order against defendant, a condominium community fellow resident.  This request was denied pending a

Private Attorney General: Orange County Superior Court Judge Awards $959,853.73 To Four Organizations Prevailing In California Freedom To Read Act Case

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General Statutes Justified The Award. In a case garnering attention in a May 1, 2026 article “Judge says city must pay $1M in court fees” published in the May 1, 2026 edition of The Orange County Register, Orange County Superior Court Judge Lindsey E. Martinez did award four organizations, in a tentative ruling,

Section 998: In Lemon Law Car Case, Defense Offers To Correct Under CLRA And Acceptance Of Plaintiff 998 Offers Justified Denial Of Consumer Protection Prevailing Fees To Plaintiff

Cases: Section 998

Also, Plaintiff Correctly Was Not Saddled With Routine Costs Against One Settling Defendant. In an interesting case for lemon law practitioners where correction offers and CCP § 998 offers are involved, the appellate court in Elikov v. Hyundai of Folsom, LLC, Case No. C099253 (3d Dist. Apr. 30, 2026) (unpublished) affirmed a denial of attorney’s

Private Attorney General: Real Parties In Interest And Intervenor Trade Association, Alleging A Direct Pecuniary Interest In Vindicating State Department Policies Which Were Not Upheld In Rodenticides Pesticides Case, Were Jointly And Severally Responsible For Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Petitioner

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

After Some Lodestar Reductions And Grant Of A Positive 1.3 Multiplier, About $857,000 Was Petitioner’s Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal.  This case involved a petitioner’s challenge in a public interest litigation to the Department of Pesticide Regulations’ need to reevaluate five rodenticides.  Department alone was not involved, with real parties in interest and intervenors claiming

Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: Probate Court’s Denial Of Successor Trustee’s Request For Attorney’s Fees Properly Denied

Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

The Fee Request Correctly Denied Because Trustee Breached The Trust, Sought To Recover Impermissible Fees Defending Her Removal, And Were Unreasonable In Nature. Estate of Disney, Case No. A171426 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 28, 2026) (unpublished) was a situation where successor trustee of grandmother’s trust was granted trustee’s and attorney’s fees/costs of a substantial

Section 998: Where Plaintiff Only Obtained A $15,835 Personal Injury Jury Verdict, After Rejecting An Earlier CCP § 988 Offer For $50,000, Plaintiff Properly Was Saddled With Post-Judgment Costs Of The Defense

Cases: Section 998

Plaintiff’s Failure To Develop A Reasoned Appellate Argument For Reversal Doomed The Appeal. In Cardeas v. Solorzano, Case No. A172766 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 28, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a $15,835 jury verdict in a personal injury car crash case, after rejecting a defense CCP § 998 offer of $50.000. The lower

Scroll to Top