Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Undertaking: Prevailing Defendant In A Derivative Lawsuit—After Losing A Bond Motion–Can Seek Trial And Appellate Costs, Not Limited By The $50,000 Bonding Amount Specified In Corporations Code Section 17709.02

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Undertaking

Section 17709.02 Does Not Trump The CCP § 1032 Trial Routine Costs Statute Or The CRC 8.891 Appellate Routine Costs Provision. In Barrios v. Chraghchian, Case No. B341773 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 20, 2026) (published), a defendant brought a bond motion under Corporations Code section 17709.02 to have a derivative lawsuit plaintiff furnish security […]

Arbitration: $220,817 Arbitration Fee Award Is Affirmed In Favor Of One Plaintiff, Because Moncharsh Did Not Show A Basis For Arbitral Reversal

Cases: Arbitration

Lower Court’s Denial Of Post-Judgment Vacatur Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff/Employee Was Justified. In Fishman v. Advisors LLP, Case No. B334179 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 15, 2026) (unpublished), a couple of former lawyers/nonequity partners sued their former law firm for compensation and over the validity of a non-compete clause.  There were various proceedings; however, one

Allocation, Section 1717: Appellate Court Affirms A Substantial Fee And Costs Award In A Mixed Contract/Tort Case Based On Santisas

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Case Drew Three Opinions, A Concurrence Finding 70% Defense Allocation For Tort Claims Was Reasonable, But With A Dissenting Justice Finding More Delineation Between Contract/Tort Claims Was In Order. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) [our Leading Case #6] was substantively upfront and center in National Merchants Assn. v. Commercial Bank of California, Case

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Winning Plaintiff In Car Towing Dispute Did Not Have Fee Recovery Entitlement Under Civil Code Section 3070

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Interlocutory Determination Of Entitlement Was Not Binding, With Section 3070 Being Inapplicable With Respect To Fee Recovery. Plaintiff won an apartment complex car towing dispute against some defendants, but she was denied requested attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 3070 in Ramsey v. Moore St. Investments, Inc., Case Nos. D084287 et al. (4th Dist., Div.

Ethics, Settlement: Client May Ratify An Unauthorized Settlement Unless It Was Not Truly Voluntary

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Settlement

Clients In the Case Did Ratify, Which Earned The Settling Former Attorneys A Nice Contingency Fee Award. Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP, Case No. B341157 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 8, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion published) contains a good discussion of when a client can ratify an unauthorized settlement reached by former attorneys and

Private Attorney General: Lower Court Abused Its Discretion In Awarding Fees Under CCP § 1021.5 Without Considering Specific Factors Outlined In The Housing Accountability Act

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$1,286,144.37 Fee Award Against City Reversed And Remanded.  Coalition of Pacificans for An Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica, Case No. A170704 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 30, 2025) (partially published; substantive fee discussion published) stands for the proposition that in fashioning a private attorney general fee award under CCP §

Scroll to Top