Cases: Allocation

Eminent Domain: Substantial Inverse Condemnation Fee Award Reversed Because Trial Court Did Not Explain Why It Chose Contingency Fee Amount Versus Hourly Fee Amount

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Eminent Domain

  Lower Court Failed to Analyze the Factors in Yuki.      After plaintiffs won a bench award of over $3.4 million in a nuisance/inverse condemnation action, the Second District, Division Two, in Karim v. City of Pomona, Case No. B210049 (May 18, 2010) (unpublished), reversed a favorable attorney’s fees award in favor of plaintiff homeowners […]

Section 1717: Although Legal Error Present In Not Finding Fee Entitlement, Fee Denial Affirmed Because Of Failure To Apportion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review

  Fourth District, Division 3 Opinion Demonstrates Interplay Between De Novo and Abuse of Discretion Review Standards on Different Fee Award Issues.      The next case shows how a litigant may convince an appellate court that legal error was committed (de novo review of a fee entitlement issue), but the battle for reversal is lost

Section 1717 And Fees Clause Interpretation: Broad Fees Clause Meant Trial Court Erred In Denying Fee Recovery To Prevailing Mortuary

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 6 Also Holds Fees Do Not Have To Be Apportioned.      Broad contractual language allowing for fee recovery “in any lawsuit or other legal proceeding to which this Agreement gives” can even grant entitlement to fee recovery with respect to tort claims. (Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342-1343

Section 1717: No Basis For Fee Recovery Where Operative Contract Had No Fees Clause, Even Though Later Contract Did Have Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Analysis of Fee Recovery Under Multiple Agreements Must Focus On Contract With Fee Clause Predicate.      Many decisions we have examined in the past under Civil Code section 1717 involve situations where multiple contracts (some with fees clauses and some without) are part of an integrated transaction or where apportionment between contract/noncontract claims was

Indemnity And Apportionment: $402,596.40 Fee Award Affirmed In Refusal To Defend Dispute

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Sixth District Found Opposing Party Forfeited Challenge to Billing Record Objections When It Failed to Attack Omissions Through Discovery Motion.      In the next case, the Sixth District—in UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, Case No. H033862 (6th Dist. Jan. 22, 2010) (unpublished)—affirmed a $402,596.40 fee award under a contractual provision when sustaining a trial

Costs Deadline, Fee Substantiation and Allocation: Fees/Costs Awarded In Anti-Speculation Liquidated Damages Clause Dispute Affirmed In Favor Of Developer

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Liquidated Damages Clause Found Valid; Fees/Costs Award Sustained Also.      This next decision should be of substantive interest to both developers and our readers interested in fee issues.      Although unpublished, Beck Properties, Inc. v. Hameed, Case No. C058279 (Dec. 11, 2009) decided that an anti-speculation clause in a purchase agreement between a developer and

Scroll to Top