Cases: Allocation

Section 1717, Allocation, Civil Rights Cost Recovery, Prevailing Party, And Section 998: Court Of Appeal Faces A Melange Of Fee/Costs Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division One Affirms Trial Court’s “Wash” Decision on Issues.      The next case involves a melange of fee and costs issues arising from a contract and civil rights case in which plaintiff recovered nothing on her claims but beat school district’s contract cross-claim. That gave rise to all sort of prevailing party claims […]

Section 1717: Nonsignatory Cross-Complainant Not Liable For Fees Under Contractual Fee Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 2 Applies Classic Reciprocity Principles Under 1717.      Baker v. Oleander Corp., Case No. B221193 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 8, 2010) (unpublished) is another reminder of how reciprocity principles under Civil Code section 1717 operate in cases involving contractual nonsignatory and signatory litigants. It also shows how trial courts will apportion

Civil Code Section 1717: Broad Performance Bond Language Is Made Mutual So That Contractor Defeating Owner’s Cross-Complaint Was Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

1717 Reciprocity Principles Save the Day Again, Sustaining $366,916.63 Fee Award.      Many construction disputes involve tripartite affairs between owner, contractor, and surety on a performance bond. That was exactly the situation in the next case, with a performance bond having a fee provision that said this: "Contractor/Principal and Surety agree that if the DISTRICT

Deadlines, Section 1717, Allocation, and Section 998: Fourth District, Division 3 Addresses Hodgepodge Of Fee/Costs Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Affirms $289,000 Costs Award and $1.6 Million Fee Award.      In a long-running case that has produced several appellate opinions along the way, V3I v. Western Digital Corp., Case No. G041386 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2010) (unpublished) finally ran its course, with the final appeal being from a $289,000 costs award and

Requests for Admissions: Court Of Appeal Reverses $55,420 Costs-of-Proof Award Against Legal Malpractice Plaintiff

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Requests for Admission

  Second District, Division 3 Remands For Costs-of-Proof Award Recalculation.      Under our sidebar category “Requests for Admissions,” we have looked at many decisions examining the costs-of-proof statute set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420(a), which allows the court to order a party improperly denying a request for admission to reimburse another party

Insurance: In Which the Court of Appeal Rules Insurer “Must Lie In the Bed It Made”

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Insurance, Cases: Mediation, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Standard of Review

Fifth District agrees the Case is “screwed up.”      The story arc of this opinion begins at a low point, and plummets.  “What the heck?I?,” begins the Court of Appeal opinion.  “At one point, the trial court commented, ‘This is one of the most screwed up cases I’ve ever seen.’  We heartily agree.”  Essex Insurance

Section 998: Lump Sum 998 Offer Made To Class Representative of Multiple Classes Found To Be Invalid

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division 1 So Rules, Assuming 998 Offers Are Valid in a Certified Class Situation.      Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., Case No. D054369 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2010) (certified for publication) is an interesting decision where significant fees were awarded in a class action involving a California consumer-shifting fee statute. However,

Homeowner Associations: Trial Court’s Denial Of Separate Fee Requests For Prevailing In Homeowner Dispute Was Erroneous

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations

Lower Court Erred in Failing to Find Fee Entitlement, to Determine Prevailing Party Status, or to Make Any Apportionments in Summarily Denying Diverse Defense Fee Requests.      Trial courts do have a duty to examine fee entitlement, to determine prevailing party status, and to make any apportionments when examining diverse fee requests by different defendants.

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Award Of Partial Fees To Winning Defendants In Statutory Action For Injunctive Relief Under CCP § 527.6(i)

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Trial Court Appropriately Apportioned Out Fee Work Unrelated to Statutory Injunctive Relief Claim.      Generally, no award of attorney’s fees is available in an invasion of privacy action. However, in a statutory action for injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(i) (a statutory harassment/violence statute), the prevailing party may be awarded court costs

Scroll to Top