Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Employment, Private Attorney General: Labor Code Section 432.6 Polygraph Rights Provision Did Not Justify Fee Award For September 2018 Firing And Where Waiver Of Employment Rights Was Not Involved

Cases: Employment, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

CCP Section 1021.5 Was Inapt Because Plaintiff Was Only Vindicating Personal Wrongs. In McDoniel v. Kavry Mgt., LLC, Case No. D084660 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2025) (published), plaintiff was not advised of rights to refuse to submit to a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment under Labor Code section 432.2 and

Appeal Sanctions, SLAPP: $68,238.62 Fee Award To Defense Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Sanctioned $13,000 For Bringing A Frivolous Appeal, Payable To The Appellate Court. In G.W. v. Coronado Unified School District, Case No. D083991 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a SLAPP motion which eviscerated their Complaint. The defense then was awarded $68,238.62 in mandatory SLAPP fees, the full request,

Arbitration: Where Defendant Paid On Last Day But There Was A Lag Due to Electronic Payment Transmission, Plaintiff Was Not Entitled To CCP Section 1281.98 Late Payment Fees

Cases: Arbitration

Defense Conduct Was Not Willful, Grossly Negligent, or Fraudulent Under Hohenshelt. We have now one of first opinions, although unpublished, which deals with how CCP section 1281.98 tardy payment of fees are dealt with, given the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.5th 310 (2025). In Wilson v. TAP Worldwide, Inc.,

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Litigant Successfully Annulling Contempt Order In Workplace Restraining Order Proceedings Properly Was Denied An Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

None Of The Claimed Bases Justified A Fees Award. In City of Grass Valley v. Coulter, Case No. C102046 (3d Dist. Sept. 19, 2025) (unpublished), City obtained a workplace restraining order against Coulter under CCP section 527.8, subsequently later obtaining a contempt order against Coulter for violating the restraining order. The contempt order was annulled

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party:  Defendants Voluntarily Dismissed From Plaintiff Neighbors’ Lawsuit Were Properly Denied Fees Under Civil Code Section 5975

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

Reason: Plaintiffs Obtained HOA Enforcement Against Defendants Such That Defendants Were Not Prevailing Parties. Even when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a lawsuit, the defendant is not necessarily the prevailing party under the Davis-Sterling Act’s fee shifting statute—because that determination depends on the reason for the dismissal and an assessment of who obtained their litigation objectives.  Such

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees:  Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding Almost $4.9 Million In Attorney’s Fees To Successful FEHA Plaintiff

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Defense Litigating Long And Hard, If Unsuccessful, Can Anticipate Large Fee Award Against It. Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Case No. B329890, et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 17, 2025) (published) illustrates how a defendant litigating hard by bringing multiple unsuccessful motions, prosecuting an unsuccessful merits appeal, and rejecting a lower CCP section

Appeal Sanctions: $10,000 In Sanctions Payable To Appellate Court Assessed Against Appellant’s Counsel For Filing Briefs Riddled With AI Hallucinations

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Appeal Court Had Authority To Sanction For This Behavior. We now have the first California published appellate opinion disclosing the perils of using AI for preparing briefs and the consequences when fabricated authority is cited to the appellate court. In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., Case No. B331918 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept.

Employment, Prevailing Party: FEHA Plaintiff Did Not Prevail For Fee Award Purposes Where Employer Won A Same Decision Defense And No Damages Were Awarded To Plaintiff . . . .

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

Despite Plaintiff Proving Disability Discrimination Was A Substantial Motivating Factor In The Termination Decision. Because FEHA contains a pro-plaintiff fee shifting provision, plaintiff claimed she was the prevailing party, in Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Case No. B328357 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 9, 2025) (unpublished), because a jury found that disability discrimination was a

Scroll to Top