Cases: Allocation

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 Jan. 22, 2010) (unpublished)—affirmed a $402,596.40 fee award under a contractual provision when sustaining a trial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      Although unpublished, Beck Properties, Inc. v. Hameed, Case No. C058279 (Dec. 11, 2009) decided that an anti-speculation clause in a purchase agreement between a developer and

Reasonableness Of Fees: If You Are Gonna Challenge, Make Sure You Specify The Bases With Particularity, Whether Substantive Or As To Amount

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Third District Rebuffs Generalized Challenges to Fee Award, Finding Many Arguments Waived Based on a Lack of Specificity.      Defendant in Allen v. Fulton, Case No. C059088 (3d Dist. Dec. 9, 2009) (unpublished) got hammered with a $217,422 fees/costs award ($212,473 of which consisted of fees) after summary judgment motions and a bench trial,

Fee Clause Interpretation and 998 Offers: Court Of Appeal Remands $400,000 Fee Award against Contractor But Affirms Separate $296,148.84 Against Contractor In Favor of Subcontractor

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision.      Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law.      In The Gifted Schools v. Grahovac Construction Co.,

Fee Clause Interpretation And Allocation: Substantial Fee Award Affirmed Where Fees Clause Was Broad In Nature And All Claims Based On Same Operative Facts

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fourth District, Division 2 Sustains $382,233.25 Fee Award Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.      As we have reminded readers before, a broad fee clause will frequently give winning litigants a “big bonus” for fee recovery purposes: the broader the clause, the better the chances that noncontractual claims will be found to give rise

SLAPP/Malicious Prosection Damages Interplay: SLAPP Fee Ruling Is Not Collateral Estoppel On Awarding Special Damages In Subsequent Malicious Prosecution Case

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fees as Damages, Cases: SLAPP

Second District Determines SLAPP Ruling Does Determine Amount of Motion to Strike Fees, But Remaining Attorney’s Fees Are Fair Game and Defendant Bears Burden of Allocating Out Unreasonable Fees. The next decision is an interesting one that we predict will have more and more play as SLAPP motions and later malicious prosecution awards interact in

Costs And Fees: Defendants “Unified In Interest” Liable For Routine Costs And Are Denied Substantial Attorney’s Fees Because Allocation Was Proper

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 3 Address Many, Many Procedural Issues in Unpublished Opinion.      In Matusek v. Benn, Case No. B206776 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished), two sets of defendants (the Murad and Benn defendants, each set composed of businesses and their principals) contracted to create an infomercial using an appearance by plaintiff

Civil Code Section 1717: Ninth Circuit Holds Tenants Winning On Preemption Issue Entitled To Fees Because Issue Arose “On The Contract”

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Preemption, Cases: Section 1717

  Federal Court of Appeals Sustains $180,029.50 Fee Award to Tenants.      In Barrientos v. 1801-182 Morton LLC, Case No. 07-56697 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2009) (certified for publication), tenants won summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief with respect to illegal notices of eviction served by a landlord arguing that Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance

Scroll to Top