Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Requests For Admission, Section 998: In Automobile Collision Case, CCP § 998 Offer Was Not Invalid For Requiring Consent By Defense Insurer Carriers, And Costs Of Proof Sanctions Properly Denied To Plaintiff

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

However, The Reasonableness Of The 998 Offer—Not Ruled On By The Lower Court—Had To Be Revisited On Remand. Matthews v. Ryan, Case Nos. B335736 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 28, 2026) (partially published; 998 discussion published, but costs of proof sanctions discussion not published) has two good discussions, one on 998 offers which […]

Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees:  $33,712.91 Fee Award To Prevailing Party Neighbor Was Affirmed In A Complicated Civil Harassment Matter

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

$650 Hourly Rate For 15-Year Attorney And $450 For A Paralegal Were Found Reasonable In A Contentious Santa Clara County Case. Two neighbors had very bad experiences with each other, with one neighbor obtaining a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) and being awarded $33,712.91 in prevailing party attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 against the

Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $599,370 Attorney’s Fees Award Under A Settlement Agreement Confirmed Because Challenging Party Waived An Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement, Miscellaneous

Case Also Has A Good Discussion Of Trial Court Retention Of Jurisdiction To Enforce A Settlement After The 1993 Amendment To CCP § 664.6. Hutchinson v. Lewis Towing 2, Inc., Case No. F088314 (5th Dist. Jan. 27, 2026) (unpublished) has a good discussion on two issues:  (1) retention of jurisdiction against dismissed defendants under CCP

Deadlines, Lodestar, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees: In Probate Quabble, $63,958.75 To A Prevailing Party For Appeal Fees Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Payment By Appellant Did Not Waive Appeal Rights; Trial Court Implicitly Extended Fee Motion Filing Deadline Due To Docketing Issues. In Skytte v. Skytte, Case No. G064930 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished), a probate dispute among certain family members may be approaching a close after an award of appellate attorney’s fees of

Section 998: Assignee Mother Of Claims Bound Her Assignor Son To Acceptance Of A 998 Offer Such That Son Could Not Bring Another Suit Against 998 Offeror

Cases: Section 998

Lack Of Standing And Res Judicata Drove The Conclusion That The Acceptance Was Final On The Dispute. Burke v. Benworth Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. G064478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2026) (unpublished) is an interesting case which confirms that an accepted and paid CCP § 998 offer by an assignee will divest the

Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Winning Tort Claims, But Losing One Contract Claim Against Some Defendants, Was Not Exposed To Attorney’s Fees By Two Set Of Defendants

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Prevailing Party

In Fact, Because He Prevailed, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fees Against One Set Of Defendants, But Not A Nonsignatory Because He Only Brought Tort Claims. Appeals, although the odds are against them, can sometimes result in a reversal of fortune.   That did occur in Moses v. Rok Drinks, Ltd., Case No. B339392 (2d Dist., Div.

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation: Broad Fees Clause Allowed Law Firm To Recover Both Trial and Appellate Fees For Prevailing In An Action/Appeal Attempting To Void An Arbitration Agreement

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Total Fees to Law Firm Came To $416,680.30. Fee-shifting can be a game changer in litigation, including litigation relating to an arbitration where the fees clause is broad in nature.  Plaintiff client learned that lesson all too well in litigation against his former counsel, as demonstrated by Milder v. Holley, Case No. B331152 (2d Dist.,

Allocation, Homeowner Associations, Lodestar: Plaintiff Replacement Trustee Losing Condo Fire Repair Lawsuit Under Governing Documents And Interrelated Tort Claims Properly Assessed With Attorney’s Fees In Favor Of HOA And Condo Manager

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Lodestar

$102,547.50 Was The Award, With No Apportionment Necessary And With It Being Reasonable In Nature. LaPay v. The Fairways Homeowner’s Assn., Case No. E082827 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 23, 2026) (unpublished) is a case showing how an HOA acted reasonably in making fire-related damage repairs when it could not locate an owner and demonstrating

Section 1717: Illegal Contract, Void From The Start, Did Not Allow Plaintiff Prevailing Solely On a Negligent Misrepresentation Claim To Garner Fees

Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Determined Both Parties “In Pari Delicto,” So No Fees Were Warranted. The Fourth District, Division Three, in S&S Engineering and Construction v. Ashby Enterprises, LLC, Case No. G062701 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), decided that a lower court’s denial of fees to a plaintiff winning on one negligent misrepresentation claim

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar: Lower Court’s 87.6% Reduction In A Lemon Law Fee Request Was Reversed As An Abuse Of Discretion Based On The Record On The Lodestar Analysis

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar

Awarding $15,000 In A Lemon Law Case Requesting $81,455.83 In Fees/Costs Was Not Fair And Required A Revisit. In Rosales v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. G063792 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), a settlement was reached in a lemon law case where attorney’s fees became the important issue at the back

Scroll to Top