Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Costs, Deadlines, POOF!: Although Plaintiff Won On The Merits, Substantial Fee Recovery and Routine Costs Recovery Were Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: POOF!

Fees Were Not Allowable Without A Fees Motion; Costs Were Not Allowable Because Failure To Use Judicial Council Worksheet Gave No Basis For A Conclusion On Whether The Costs Were Reasonable, In Response To Defendant’s Motion To Tax Costs. Pelloni v. Mirshahi, Case Nos. B336950 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished) […]

Costs, Deadlines, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CHRO Prevailing Party On Modification Request And Appeal Work On Certain Orders Was Entitled To The Lower Court’s Fee Recovery

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of Costs Was Filed. In litigation which has gone on for a while and generated several appeals, the dust may have finally settled with the appellate court opinion in George v.

Liens For Attorney Fees: Third District Holds That A Single Declaratory Relief Action Against Both The Clients And Competing Attorney Lien Claimant Is A Permissible Way To Enforce Attorney Lien Claims On Settlement Or Judgment Proceeds

Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees

Second Attorney Obtaining A Recovery Does Not Have To Wait For Clients’ Former Attorney To Bring A Separate Individual Action Against The Clients. In Jacobs v. Papez, Case No. C100761 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2026) (published), which involved dueling claims by two attorneys to enforce lien rights against clients’ settlement, the Third District held “that

Family Law: Marriage of Hoch Opinion Now Published

Cases: Family Law

Case Held That Not Stipulating To Legal Separation On Religious Grounds And Not Particularizing Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Request Led To A Reversal. On February 20, 2026, we posted on Marriage of Hoch, Case No. G063467 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), which held that Family Code section 271 sanctions were not

Common Fund, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Winning Derivative Claim On Behalf Of A Limited Partnership Was Properly Awarded Fees Under Corporations Code Section 15910.05(b) Out Of The Damage Recovery Obtained By The LP Against Defendant

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Section 15910.05(b) Is Not Displaced By Common Fund/Substantial Benefit Theories, Although Those Theories Also Supported The Fee Award. In Duboff v. Schermer, Case Nos. B343324 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 12, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff won a substantial damages recovery of almost $6 million against defendant in a limited partnership derivative action (where plaintiff

Lis Pendens, Prevailing Party, Probate: Respondents In Probate Dispute Venued In Marin County Won Attorney’s Fees In Successfully Expunging A Lis Pendens And Then Won More Substantial Fees As The Prevailing Parties After Petitioner Voluntarily Dismissed A 850 Petition

Cases: Lis Pendens, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate

Various Statutes Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement In The Probate Case. One of our readers, Ronald Foreman of San Francisco’s Foreman & Brasso, sent us some interesting fee opinions in the Marin County Superior Court case of Matter of the Gregory Joseph Schoepp Living Trust, Case No. PR000248 [12/6/24 lis pendens expungement fee order and

Costs, Section 998: Where A Losing Cross-Defendant Was Never Served With A Section 998 Offer, Trial Court Erred In Awarding Expert Witness Expenses Against Her

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Costs Recovery Was Void Under CCP § 473(d), With A Remand Ordered To See If Other Costs Were Allowable. Warren v. Shahar, Case No. B339274 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 11, 2026) (unpublished) illustrates how a costs memorandum likely needs to be filed separately when there are separate parties involved and CCP § 998 offers

Lodestar, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Deed Restriction Document Gave Rise to Contractual Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees, Miscellaneous

$144,210 Was The Fees Award, With Attorney Declaration Of Efforts Sufficient And Rejecting The Notion That City’s Lead Counsel’s Salary Guided The Lodestar Analysis. In City of Santa Monica v. Sung, Case No. B336881 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 10, 2026) (unpublished), defendant condo owner lost a declaratory relief action brought by City

Probate: Counsel Appointed To Represent A Conservatee Pursuant To Probate Code Section 1471 Was Entitled To Conservatorship-Related Compensation ….

Cases: Probate

However, Compensation For A Civil Proceeding Separate From The Conservatorship Could Not Be Compensated Under 1471; Rather Probate Code Section 2430 Requisites Had To Be Followed If Quasi-Contractual Recovery Was Being Sought For That Work. The Probate Code has many provisions allowing for compensation to attorneys in different contexts; however, the strictures under some of

Scroll to Top