This Decision Has A Nice Discussion Of The Policies Underlying Civil Code Section 1717. There is a nice discussion of the policies underlying Civil Code section 1717 and the claims which trigger fee exposure under this statute in Engage BDR, LLC v. Amobee, Inc., Case No. B309263 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 7, 2022) […]
Lower Court Retains Lots Of Discretion To Apportion Fees in Partition Action. DeMartini v. DeMartini, Case No. A160849 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 7, 2022) (unpublished) is a reminder that the partition statutes allow a trial judge broad authority to award and apportion fees to parties in a partition action. In this one, the
Installer Was Awarded $1,223 In Costs And $95,531.68 In Attorney’s Fees. Plaintiff owner sued a home installer on various contractual, tort, and statutory theories for a job of under $4,000, with there being a home improvement contract with a fees clause covering performance issues under the contract. Owner lost across the board, with the
Trial Judge Did Reduce Requested Lodestar By More Than $70,000—About 60% Of The Request, Although Refusing To Award A Positive 1.5 Multiplier. Landlords in Duncan v. Kihagi, Case No. A154678 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 6, 2021) (unpublished), were not pleased when a trial judge awarded $910,752.50 in fees in favor of the winning
Practice Tip—Think About Apportioning To Avoid The Result Here! Stifano v. Slaga, Case No. D077865 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 17, 2021) (unpublished) is an example of a case which we do not see often: a trial judge denying attorney’s fees altogether when a party did not apportion them between compensable and non-compensable claims.
Plaintiff’s Failure To Conduct Due Diligence Prior To Entering Into Commercial Lease And Failure To Mitigate Damages Once Problems Arose Left Him Upside-Down By More Than A Million Dollars When All Was Said And Done Sherwood v. Vogele, Case No. D076776 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 7, 2021) (unpublished) highlights the importance of
Invoices Submitted In Support Of Plaintiff’s § 1717 Fees Motion Were Extensively Redacted And Contained Vague Block-Billing, Which Offered The Trial Court No Way To Meaningfully Apportion Time Between Causes Of Action. After defeating defendant’s cross-claim breach of contract cause of action, plaintiff moved for Civ. Code § 1717 attorney fees of $939,600.50, which
Parties Orally Stipulated To A Postponement Of Appellate Fee Deadlines And Work Was Inextricably Intertwined. In Ebrahimpour v. Pasco, Case No. B303983 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 7, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a corporate opportunity dispute where there was a memorandum of agreement with a contractual fees clause against multiple defendants. On remand after
Employee Had Requested Fees Of $168,749.47 After Garnering Compensatory Award Of $6,958.36. This case is another example of how non-compensable claim allocation and limited success can lead to a substantial reduction of a fee request even where there is some fee entitlement basis. In Caballero v. Bill Muncey Industries, Inc., Case No. D076628
The Fees Award Was Supported By PAGA, Section 1021.5, And The Catalyst Theory, And Apportionment Of Fees Among The Retaliation And PAGA Claims Was Neither Necessary Nor Possible, While Complexity Of Issues And Skill Of Attorneys Supported Multiplier In This Intensely Litigated Case. In Sargeant v. Board of Trustees of The California State University,
