The Defense Relied On California Procedural And Substantive Law At The Trial Court Level, Such That Invoking Hawaii Law Was Unfair Given The Settlement Agreement Had No Fee Clause. McLaughlin v. Machen, Case No. H045869 (6th Dist. May 28, 2021) (unpublished) was an interesting choice of law case where plaintiffs lost certain claims against […]
It All Depends On Whether The Issue Is Substantive Or Procedural. So, you have a commercial transaction in which an agreement has a choice-of-law clause indicating that attorney’s fees will be awarded under the English rule (by which the losing party has to pay reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party). Does this automatically
Fee Recovery Barred By Judicial Estoppel—Plaintiff Classified Claims In Tort, Not Contract, Such That No Fee Recovery Allowable Under Either California Or Texas Laws. This next case does demonstrate the complexity that our state appellate courts have to wade through, even in unpublished opinions, to adjudicate appeals from fee awards where conflicting state laws
Defendant Did Not Satisfy Nedlloyd Interest Analysis To Swing The Scales Back To California. This next case may have limited utility because its result really hinged on defendant’s failure to meet its burden of proof under the appropriate choice-of-law analysis. In River Oaks Self-Storage TIC 4, LP v. River Oaks Storage, LLC, Case
Causal Link Was Missing Based On The Record. Plaintiffs in a putative class action involving the proposed mergers between two advertising billboard companies, Outdoor and InterMedia, moved to recover attorney’s fees when another company (KSE) bought Outdoor for an enhanced purchase price, claiming to have benefitted Outdoor shareholders by an additional $57 million
California’s Civil Code Section 1717 Reciprocity Principles Trumped New Mexico Choice Of Law Clause Where Foreign Residents Only Involved. Bank of America, N.A. v. Lahave, Case Nos. B253931/B256219 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 21, 2016) (unpublished) involved a loan made in New Mexico to a New Mexico resident, which was guaranteed by California
California Choice of Law Principles Governed, With Ninth Circuit Believing California Supreme Court Would Decide 1717 Evinces Fundamental State Policy. In one of our early posts on June 11, 2008, we talked about Civil Code section 1717—which makes unilateral contractual fees clauses reciprocal in nature—and its interplay with choice of law decision—decisions considering
Reason Was that Iranian Law Limited Calculation of Amount In Accordance With Official Tariff Ceiling. Although not from California, this case is important in highlighting how the choice of law can really drive the result in a particular matter, including on appeal. In McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 01-7041
Hold On For The Answers. Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Nos. 10-35137 et al. (9th Cirl Mar. 6, 2013) (published) faced some interesting issues in a situation where a venued diversity action had a “loser pay” statutory fee recovery provision under Alaska law–the venue–but the contract between the parties specified
Indemnitee Drafted Pennsylvania Choice of Law Clause, Putative Indemnitor Conceded Fees Clause In Indemnity Agreement Was Reciprocal, And Apportionment Not Required Because Liability And Indemnity Issues Inextricably Intertwined. You knew where this one was going when it opened “Appellant . . . was hoist by its own petard when the trial court enforced
