Cases: Allocation

Allocation/Estoppel/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: Real Estate Buyer’s Tort Claims Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure Under Narrowly-Worded Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Sellers Were Liable To Third-Party For Losing Their Contractual/Indemnity Claims, Which Were Intertwined And Needed No Apportionment.      Real estate buyer lost tort/statutorily-based nondisclosure claims to the sellers in a dispute where a purchase agreement had a fees clause mandating fees in an action brought “with respect to the subject matter of enforcement […]

Allocation/POOF!: Split Decision On Applicability Of Two Guaranties Meant Dueling Fee Awards Had To Be Reconsidered On Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: POOF!

  Even a Partial Reversal Can See a Substantial Fee Award Goes POOF!      City of Novato v. Morgan, Case No. A130899 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 27, 2014) (unpublished) involved the scope of personal guaranties to perform under two residential subdivision agreements. In prior litigation not involving the two guaranties, City was successful in

Allocation: Trial Court’s 42% Apportionment Of Fee Recovery Was Legally Erroneous Where No Clear Division Between Covered Unpaid Wage Versus Noncovered Tort Claims Apparent In Lower Court Ruling

Cases: Allocation

  Matter Remanded for New Apportionment.      In Deven v. Dynamic Auto Images, Case No. G048064 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff dismissed a harassment lawsuit which contained some tort and contractual claims. Defendant moved to recover some attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 218.5, an unpaid wage fee-shifting statute, with the

Allocation/Consumer Statutes: Automobile Purchasers Not Effectively Rescinding Did Not Obtain Reversal Of Adverse Fee Recovery Under Two Consumer Statutes

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes

  Work on $54,771.25 Fee Award Was Interrelated Under Automobile Sales Finance Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claims.      Many consumer statutes allow for fee recovery to the prevailing party, such as the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA, Civ. Code,, § 2983.4). Others allow for fee recovery, even against the consumer but only if

Allocation/Employment/Landlord-Tenant/Section 1717: Wild Landlord/Tenant And Minimum Wage Earner Battle Means All Fee Awards Had To Be Reversed

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

  Rental Inhabitability Battles Are Contractual, Giving Rise to 1717 Fee Exposure, While Limited Success On Minimum Wage Mandatory Fee-Shifting Claims Requires Apportionment and Possible Reduction.       This next case is hard to pigeonhole, because it involves cross-over issues in the Landlord/Tenant and Employment post sites. However, Staley v. Carlson, Case No. A133115 (1st Dist.,

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation/Prevailing Party: Broadly-Worded Fees Clause Allowed For Recovery Of Fees On Noncontract Claims Following Voluntary Dismissal In Wake Of Pleading Motions

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Fee Motion Properly Filed and No Allocation Between Claims Required.      Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its contract-based/tortious interference case against one defendant without prejudice in the wake of pending pleading motions, with the trial court determining that fully requested fees of $16,926 were due to prevailing defendant.      Plaintiff’s multi-pronged attack in Oxnard Corner, LLC

Allocation/Costs/Prevailing Party: Wine Cellar Gets Hit With $28,659.50 Contract Damages Plus Prejudgment Interest PLUS $36,061.50 In Contractual Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Plaintiff Got Unqualified Win, With No Apportionment Needed; Two Winning Defendants Failed To Timely File For Costs.      This case stirred our curiosity, because it involves Veris Cellars, which appears to be a very nice winery located in the Paso Robles area in San Luis Obispo County. However, no matter who the litigant, beware

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees: On Remand, $68,898 Apportioned Fees Out Of $179,000 Original Request Found Justified

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Originally, Only $1,050 Ordered, But Apportioned Amount Went Up When New Judge Assigned to Fix Fees on Remand.      This case has an interesting history, including a prior appeal which resulted in this decision after the case was remanded and attorneys’ fees were “re-fixed.” However, the post-remand appellate decision does have some great pointers

Allocation/Employment/Trade Secrets: Wage Nonpayment And Trade Secret Misappropriation Fee Recoveries To Prevailing Defendants Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Trade Secrets

  Interrelatedness of Contract/Wage Nonpayment Administrative Proceedings and Trade Secret Bad Faith Justified Sustaining of Lower Court Awards.      Plaintiff lost both DLSE administrative proceedings and a breach of contract/trade secret case against various defendants, with the lower court then awarding one defendant Labor Code section 98.2 fees of $43,881.25 for winning the DLSE appeal/beating

Scroll to Top