Author name: William M. (Mike) Hensley

Equity: Two Of Our Readers Obtained An Award Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs For Their Client (A Defendant/Cross-Complainant) As A Condition Of A Superior Court’s Order Equitably Vacating A Default Against A Cross-Defendant

Cases: Equity

This Is One Of The Larger Fee/Costs Award We Have Seen In This Area, But The Fees And Costs Encompassed Several Other Pre-Trial Proceedings On The Subject. Two readers of our blog, Ronald C. Foreman and Ian A. Hansen of Foreman & Brasso in San Francisco, are to be congratulated as well as “hat tipped” […]

Costs: Prevailing Party’s Cost Memorandum Was Timely Filed After Entry Of Judgment On A Retrial Following An Earlier Granting Of A New Trial Motion

Cases: Costs

Also, Appellant’s Apportionment Argument Based On Relative Successes Had No Factual Analysis, So It Was Rejected. In Mileck v. Mileck, Case No. A170748 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), appellant/non-prevailing party filed a motion to tax costs against the prevailing party, with the lower court only taxing $520 out a requested $29,238.98 in

Tort Of Another: Although It Is Not An Independent Cause Of Action, The Doctrine Could Be Pursued As A Component Of Damages In Plaintiff’s Tort Claims Against Her Broker Relating To A Residential House Purchase

Cases: Tort of Another

Plaintiff’s Prior Loss In An Arbitration Against Seller And Seller’s Broker Did Not Prevent Application Of The Doctrine. Plaintiff buyer of a residential house was not pleased after discovering that the property reeked of cigarette smoke.  She first sued seller and seller’s broker primarily for nondisclosure, and she lost an arbitration against them (naturally incurring

POOF!, Section 1717: Because Plaintiff’s Declaratory Relief Action Was Moot, The Ensuing $165,000 Fee Award Under Section 1717 Went POOF! As A Matter Of Law

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Should Have Dismissed The Case, Not Enter Judgment In Plaintiff’s Favor. In Currency Corp. v. The Pullman Group LLC, Case Nos. B340592 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), a long-running battle involving enforceability of a contract assigning royalties to defendants, the lower court entered a declaratory relief judgment in

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $6,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Respondent In CHRO Proceeding Was No Abuse Of Discretion Under CCP § 527.6

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Respondent’s Counsel Discounted His Fees; And, While Inability to Pay Is Not A 527.6 Factor, The Lower Court Did Take It Into Account By Allowing The Fee Award Payments To Be Made Over 30 Months. In Naeini v. Leuchter, Case No. B341481 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner lost a civil harassment

Tort Of Another: First District Confirms That This Doctrine Does Not Extend To Fees Expended In Suing A Direct Tortfeasor Where The Defendant Had An Adverse Fee Award In The Underlying Action

Cases: Tort of Another

A Third Party Had To Be Involved, Not The Case. Guinnane Construction Co. v. Chess, Case No. A172999 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 26, 2026) (published) confirmed that the tort of another doctrine does not apply against a tortfeasor beyond fees incurred in prosecuting or defending the action with the third party, but it does

Homeowner Associations, POOF!: In A Case Involving Two Homeowners, 4/1 DCA’s Majority Opinion Struck An Attorney’s Fees Award Completely Because It Was Premature And Plaintiff Was Not The Prevailing Party

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: POOF!

Dissent Disagreed, Wanting To Remand The Matter For Determining A Reasonable Fee Award–$138,875 In Fees Went POOF! Based On The Majority Opinion. In an interesting 2-1 decision, the 4/1 DCA in Senseman v. Mimi Real Properties, Case No. D084658 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 26, 2026) (unpublished) affirmed a merits determination but struck a $138,875

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Where Defendant Minimally Prevailed On A Declaratory Relief Claim But County Avoided $6 Million Exposure On A Negligent Misrepresentation Count, County Was Entitled To Over $800,000 In Attorney’s Fees And A Little Under $24,000 In Costs Under A Contractual Fee Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Under A Broad Contractual Fees Clause, The Lower Court Can Determine The Prevailing Party—Much To The Chagrin Of A Losing Party. We have posted for years as bloggers.  We are not judges, nor pretend to be.  But we can say certain themes prevail in many cases we have posted on: (1) broad contractual fee clauses

Costs: Where Party Moving To Tax Appellate Costs Demonstrated That Party Paid Some Expenses, The Burden Shifted To The Costs-Claiming Party To Provide Receipts

Cases: Costs

The Motion To Tax Costs Did Shift The Burden Back To The Costs Claimant—Not Met. In Deen v. Kreditor, Case No. G064426 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2026) (unpublished), a prevailing party on a prior appeal filed a costs memorandum for appellate costs totaling $1,184.65.  The losing side filed a motion to tax appellate

Retainer Agreements: Plaintiff Disputing Allocation To Her As Client And To Her Attorneys Lost The Fight Because The Retainer Agreement Had A Provision Stating That No Contingency Arrangements Applied To Settlements Where Individual Recovery And Fee Recovery To Counsel Were Separately Negotiated

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Plaintiff Herself Was A Sophisticated Litigant, With The Lower And Appellate Courts Finding The Retainer Agreement Was Unambiguous In The Proper Allocation. Brinkman v. Jane Doe, Case No. A173377 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 24, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff disputed what portion of a settlement negotiated with two different bank defendants was

Scroll to Top