Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Appeal Sanctions: In Pro Per Appellants Will Have To Pay The Reasonable Appellate Fees Of Their Opponent Based On AI Hallucination Citations

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Superior Court Judge Will Determine The Fees To Be Awarded. Pro per appellants are not immune from appellate sanctions for having used AI hallucinations citations in their AOB.  The penalty in Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Case No. E085566 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 27, 2026) (unpublished) for in pro per appellants in this

Fee Clause Interpretation, Probate, Settlement: Attorney’s Fees Were Assessed Against Trustee Based On Handwritten Settlement Agreement With A Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Probate, Cases: Settlement

Both Sides Were Represented By Counsel In The Negotiating and Signing of The Agreement. The Fifth District in Kirkland v. Beeck, Case No. F090251 (5th Dist. Aug. 26, 2026; posted Aug. 27, 2026) (unpublished), was a case involving dueling probate petitions by a trustee/beneficiary and a cousin beneficiary under a trust, with cousin prevailing and being

Sanctions: First District Parts Company From The Second District On Whether A Safe Harbor Sanctions Motion Has To Have A Hearing Date

Cases: Sanctions

This May Go Up for California Supreme Court Review In Ari Law P.C. v. Autonation.com, Inc., Case No. A173620 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 26, 2026) (published), the First District parted company from two Second District decisions (Galleria, 179 Cal.App.4th 535 and J.N., 120 Cal.App.5th 544) in arriving at the conclusion that the CCP section 1010 notice requirements

Costs, Multipliers, Reasonableness of Fees, Requests For Admission: $200,000 Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Elderly Patient In A Senior Facility, Over A 60% Reduction From The Requested Lodestar Fees, Was Affirmed On Appeal Based On Negative Multiplier Factors And The Abuse Of Discretion Review Standard

Cases: Costs, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission

Lower Court Also Did Not Err In Taxing Costs For Unreasonable, Unused Photocopies of Exhibits and Enlargements. In Aud v. RRT Enterprises, LP, Case No. B340727 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 26, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff sued for elder abuse under two statutes (including a Health & Safety Code provision) and negligence, with a jury finding

Family Law: Ex-Wife Properly Denied Family Code Section 2030 Fees Because She Had Some Assets, She Chose Not To Work, And Her Counsel Drove Up The Costs In The Dissolution Action

Cases: Family Law

$60,000 Was The Denied Request. In Marriage of Patel, Case No. B351488 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 24, 2026) (unpublished), the family law judge denied ex-wife’s request for $60,000 in needs-based fees under Family Code section 2030.  The appellate court affirmed.  Although the lower court’s reasons at the oral hearing were not a model of

Sanctions: Where Ex-Attorneys Failed To Dismiss A Case As Promised, Sanctions Were Appropriate Where The Case Was Not Dismissed During The Safe Harbor Period Or Even By The Date Of The Sanctions Hearing

Cases: Sanctions

$10,450 In Sanctions Under CCP Section 128.7 Were Imposed, Less Than The $37,000-Plus Request. Ghermezian v. Ruiz, Case No. B345272 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 24, 2026) (unpublished) involved a dispute between ex-attorneys against the ex-client and the subsequent attorneys over settlement fund dispersal after a settlement was obtained by the subsequent attorneys.  As generally

Reasonableness Of Fees: $72,441 Fee Award In Contentious Real Estate Litigation Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

$96,529 Was The Request, With No Reporter’s Transcript And No Abuse Of Discretion Sealing The Conclusion.  Nasey v. Fell Holdings LLC, Case No. A175452 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2026) (unpublished) involved 2 1/2 years of contentious real estate litigation where five defendants finally obtained judgment on the pleadings against a plaintiff breaching a

Arbitration, Sanctions: $1,822.50 Sanction Issued By Arbitrator Without Notices Is Stricken From Confirmed Arbitration Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

However, The Remaining Part Of A Substantial Award Is Sustained. In Alharbi Brothers v. Corona Town Farmers Market, Case No. D086595 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 18, 2026) (unpublished), an arbitrator issued a substantial $1.35 million-plus arbitration award against a losing party (inclusive a fee award) and an additional $1,822.50 sanctions against the losing party

Private Attorney General: Litigant Obtaining Relief For Himself As Far As Clarifying An Arbitration Award On His Medical License Was Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because It Did Not Vindicate A Broader Interest—Just His Interest

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$234,344 Fee Request, Denied By The Lower Court, Was Sustained On Appeal. In Bulkin v. Medical Board of Cal., Case No. B350396 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 17, 2026) (unpublished), a physician/surgeon did obtain a prior unpublished successful appeal in which the lower court was directed to remove from the Medical Board’s records a post

Scroll to Top