Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

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 Yellow Dog Holdings, LLC v. Regions Bank, Case No. G064613 (4th Dist., Div. 3) (May 12, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Sanchez, did deal with a procedural issue we have seen frequently argued.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 K.G. Mullen, Inc. v. Kirakosian, Case No. B322602 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2026) (unpublished) primarily involved a construction “change order” dispute between a contractor and residential owner over construction of a steel deck at owner’s house.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 In Raheb v. Williamson, Case No. B343023 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 4, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner sought to obtain a temporary restraining order against defendant, a condominium community fellow resident.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

Homeowner Associations:  $816,260.08 Fee/Costs Award Under Davis-Stirling Act Fee Shifting Provision Affirmed On Appeal In HOA’s/Affiliates’ Favor

Cases: Homeowner Associations

Case Shows How These Disputes Can Be Heartbreaking For Either Side. Burnside v. 1545 Broadway Homeowners Assn., Case No. A171368 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 28, 2026) (unpublished) shows how HOA-homeowners cases, with respect to fee and costs recovery by a victory, echo the famous sports retort “the thrill of victory and the

Arbitration: Where A Party Prevailed After Multiple Appeals And After Post-Arbitration Proceedings In Which Consumer Loan Interest/Loan Fee Provisions Were Voided, The Award Of Prevailing Party Fees Totaling $900,718 Was Proper

Cases: Arbitration

A Final Determination Was Made: Client Prevailed, And To The Victor Went The Spoils –Substantial Attorney’s Fees. Once again, Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key, Case Nos. B338733 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 27, 2026) (unpublished) confirms that the victor in arbitration proceedings, which may entail having to overturn an adverse arbitration award

Scroll to Top