Cases: Allocation

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees:  $32,133.50 Fee Award Arising Out Of Plaintiff’s $5,159.77 Easement Dispute Victory Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Fees Were Reasonable, Plaintiffs Were Successful, And No Apportionment Required.             Neighbors, which happens more frequently than one might suppose, got into a dispute over a negative easement involving an excavation ban within 10 feet of the base of certain trees along their shared property, with the dispute based upon a settlement agreement in Biggs […]

Allocation/Consumer Statutes:  Joint And Several Liability Fees And Costs Award Under Consumer Statutes Reversed Because Apportionment Was Required Between Car Dealership and Financing Company

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes

FTC Holder Rule Under Consumer Legal Remedies Act And Car Dealership’s Tender Under the Automobile Sales Finance Act Were At Issue.             There are many California consumer statutes which allow fee shifting, mainly to the prevailing party—so that a fair amount of them are bilateral in nature (unlike in the employment context, favoring the employee). 

Allocation/Prevailing Party:  Trial Judge Erred By Awarding “Full Boat” Requested Fees To Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Where Record Did Not Show That It Necessarily Prevailed

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party

On Remand, Prevailing Party Determination Needs To Be Revisited As Well As Apportionment Issues. Sequoia Lake, 1920s.  Online Archive of California.             Central Valley Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. v. The Sequoia Lake Conference of Young Men’s Christian Associations, Case No. F072379 (5th Dist. Oct. 3, 2017) (unpublished) was an interesting YMCA inter-organizational battle about

Allocation:  2/1 DCA Confirms That Apportionment Is A Highly Discretionary Call For The Trial Court On How And When To Apportion

Cases: Allocation

Winning Alter Ego Targets’ Fee Award Of $82,500 Sustained On Appeal.             In Califco, LLC v. Kientz, Case No. B28004 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2017) (unpublished), two alter ego targets were found personally not liable with respect to contract and tort claims brought out of a failed restaurant situation involving a lease.  The

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation:  One Prevailing Defendant Entitled To Some Fee Recovery Under Promissory Note Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

However, That Defendant’s Assertion Of A Contract As An Affirmative Defense Required Some Paring Back of Fees Under Recent Mountain Air Decisio             On August 1, 2017, we posted on Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, 2017 WL 3222520 (Cal. Supreme Court 2017).  A panel of the 2/4 DCA delayed submission of a

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717:  Lease Rescission Claim Did Give Rise To Successful Fee Recovery To The Tune Of $418,730.75 In Fees And $16,260.79 In Costs In Tenant’s Favor

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

“Any Remedy Hereunder” Lease Language Salted Away The Result.             In The Redbean House Corp. v. Colonnade Wilshire Corp., Case No. B276837 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 16, 2017) (unpublished), tenant successfully obtained rescission of a commercial lease based on a substantial seismic retrofit issue, although landlord obtained $49,647 in damages for waste after a

Allocation/Section 998: Plaintiff Accepting $9,980 998 Offer After Aggressive Litigation By Defense Properly Granted $93,270 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 998

Panoply Of Defense Arguments Rejected On Appeal.             Plaintiff in Alexander v. Market Street Apartments, LLC, Case No. D070198 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2017) (unpublished) accepted a CCP § 998 offer for $9,980 expressly allowing her to file a fees motion in a wage/hour dispute subject to a one-way favorable Labor Code fee

Equity, Sanctions, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Allocation:  Unpublished Decisions In Last Few Days Address Multiple Fee Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

    Equity—Gilotti v. Stewart, Case No. C075611 (3d Dist. April 26, 2017) (Unpublished):  Section 998 Offer, Typo Notwithstanding Valid, and Attorney’s Self Interest Disqualified Fee Recovery.                   In this construction defect lawsuit, plaintiff was ordered to pay a prevailing grading contractor expert fees under CCP § 998, even though the offer said $49,999

Allocation/Appealability/Prevailing Party:  Litigant Winning Demurrer Without Leave Entitled To Contractual Fee Recovery For Unqualified Win

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party

    Apportionment Would Have To Be Made, Because Litigant Shared Counsel With Remaining Party In Litigation.               Hyatt v. Aurora Western Pacific Advisors, Inc., Case No. G052981 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 20, 2017) (unpublished) illustrates that difficulties in apportioning fees does not allow a trial judge to deny a fee request by

Allocation/Costs/Section 1717: Plaintiff Attempting To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Lenders Without Prejudice Subjected To Substantial 1717 Fee Exposure To The Tune Of $526,393 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 1717

  Plaintiff Also Hit With Some Costs, But Some Non-Statutory And Discretionary Costs Were Stricken.      Plaintiff borrowers brought a multi-count contractual/tort/statutory claim-based suit against construction loan participants, ultimately attempting to dismiss the action without prejudice during trial. The trial judge determined the dismissal was not authorized and set it aside as void, further granting

Scroll to Top