October 2010

Consumer Statutes: CCP § 1032 "Prevailing Party" Standard Does Not Have To Govern Fee Recovery Under CLRA or ASFA

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Fourth District, Division 3 Rejects Kim‘s Reliance on § 1032 Standard.      In a very interesting case arising out of Orange County litigation, our local Santa Ana appellate court has parted company with another appellate court as far as the "prevailing party" standard to use for fee entitlement purposes under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act

Mediation: Third District Decides That "Mediation Condition Precedent" Clause In Real Estate Contract Only Applies To Party Commencing An Action

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Mediation

It Does Not Apply to Someone Simply Defending An Action.      In our category "Mediation," we have explored many decisions entertaining the issue of when attorney’s fees are properly awarded under California real estate purchase agreements with attorney’s fees clauses mandating mediation as a condition precedent to fee recovery. Here is another decision on the

Fees Clause Interpretation: Fourth District, Division 3 Adopts Contextual Interpretation of Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Appellate Court Strikes Attorney’s Fees Award of $9,350 in Favor of Plaintiff.      In Legal Service Bureau, Inc. v. Mostafavi, Case No. G041804 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 4, 2010) (unpublished), our local Santa Ana appellate court dealt with a lower court judgment awarding $9,350 to plaintiff under an attorney’s fees clause of an agreement

In The News . . . . San Juan Capistrano Stung With $2.3 Million In Litigation Expenses After It Lost Development-Related Lawsuit By Scalzo Family Trust

In The News

Expense Award Follows on the Heels of Nearly $7 Million Adverse Jury Verdict.      As reported by Vik Jolly in a September 27, 2010 article in The Orange County Register, San Juan Capistrano must be reeling from a recent adverse jury verdict and subsequent litigation expenses award stemming from a lawsuit it lost against the

Landlord/Tenant: Vexatious Litigant Hit With $176,417 In Fees And Costs Under Retaliatory Eviction Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Landlord/Tenant

First District, Division 3 Grants Fees Under CC § 1942.5(g).      Ouch—the sting of attorney’s fees can be harsh. Plaintiff, declared to be a vexatious litigant in a case involving a retaliatory eviction cross-claim, discovered that lesson the hard way.       King v. Nielsen, Case Nos. A124067/A124801 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2010) (unpublished)

Scroll to Top