Cases: Allocation

Homeowners Association/Standard Of Review/Allocation/Substantiation of Fees: Substantial Cross-Fee Awards Affirmed Across The Board In Acrimonious Tree View Dispute

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Second District, Division 1 Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Various Fee Awards.      It is amazing how ocean views, privacy, and trees all seem to be in the mix of many neighbor/homeowner association disputes. The next one is no exception, producing substantial cross-fee awards under Civil Code section 1354 that probably only made the […]

Allocation: None Necessary In Financial Elder Abuse Case Where Issues Were Intertwined

Cases: Allocation

First District, Division 4 Sustains $320,748.25 Fee Award to Plaintiff Conservator.      Plaintiff conservator won a $99,900 compensatory jury verdict against certain defendants, but only one defendant was found liable under the elder abuse statute containing a mandatory fee shifting provision against unsuccessful defendants. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.5(a).) Later, the trial court ordered

Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fee Clause Relating To Any Initiated Litigation In Connection With Obstruction Justified Substantial Fee Award Against Losing Party

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Second District, Division 6 Affirms $210,697.50 Fee Award.      Judges, as much as anyone, do try to be pragmatic in awarding fees, which are frequently based on equitable considerations. Here is one illustrating that principle, even though the breadth of the fees clause and intertwinement of issues well supported the result legally.      In

Allocation And Costs: “Scorched Earth” Tactics Can Cost You In The Fee/Costs Battle

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

Second District, Division 6 Finds No Unreasonableness in Trial Court Awards.      “Scorched earth” is a frequently bandied phrase in litigation. However, if a trial court believes that you as a litigant have engaged in it, this strategy may cost you big when it comes time for reckoning fee/cost recovery to the prevailing party after

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

Scroll to Top