Cases: Choice of Law

Choice of Law/Indemnity/Section 1717: Losing Indemnitee Bears Full Requested Attorney’s Fees Against It, As Non-Prevailing Party, Of $161,669.87 For Being Defeated In Indemnity Action

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

  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 […]

Lots Of Fee Decisions On Variant Issues Come Out On June 21, 2011

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Choice of Law–California Law Applies Across the Board If It Is the Governing Choice of Law on Fee Issues.      In our prior posts of June 11, 2008 and January 21, 2010, we discussed decisions indicating that Civil Code section 1717’s reciprocity principle is a fundamental California interest trumping unilateral fee clauses governed by

Choice of Law: Second District, Division Five Upholds Denial of Attorney’s Fees Under California Law

Cases: Choice of Law

Appellants Fail to Get Past First Base Because They Did Not Establish Material Difference in the Laws of California and Bermuda.      Defendants/appellants succeeded in getting the trial court to strike a tardy amended complaint.  Defendants then argued that under Bermuda law, they were entitled to fees of $105,237.30 as the prevailing parties.  Defendants argued

FEHA/RFA Fee Shifting: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Denying Defense Fee Request Of $204,723

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Requests for Admission

Standard of Review Was Determinative in This One.      When statutes give trial court discretionary calls on fee requests, appellate courts review such calls under a very deferential standard of review. This deferential standard—abuse of discretion–was determinative in the next case we review.      In Ross v. Frank, Case No. B211125 (2d Dist., Div. 1

Choice Of Law: California’s Civil Code Section 1717 “Reciprocity” Policy Trumped Wisconsin Unilateral Fee Clause Choice Of Law To The Contrary

Cases: Choice of Law

Court of Appeal Also Discusses Grove Properties and Berglass Conflict of Law Decisions.      Way back in one of our “youngster” posts on June 11, 2008, we discussed two interesting choice of law decisions, ABF Capital Corp. v. Grove Properties Co., 126 Cal.App.4th 204 (2005) and ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass, 130 Cal.App.4th 825 (2005),

Choice of Law: English Rule On Fees Likely Applied … But Fees Denied Where Claimant Failed To Provide Proper English Authority To Trial Court

Cases: Choice of Law

Denial of Fees Affirmed by Second District, Division 4.      The next case is a grim reminder for fee claimants that, where foreign law governs a fee proceeding, you need to make sure you cite proper foreign authorities to the trial court in support of the fee application. The claimants in the next case didn’t

Special Fee Shifting Statute and Fee Clause Interpretation: Singapore Law Governs Non-Statutory Issues

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Preemption, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Ninth Circuit Reverses Denial of Fees Award, Remanding for A New Look in COGSA, Bill of Lading Case.      So what happens when you have a seemingly statutory choice-of-law clause (that means no attorney’s fees) and a contractual clause (that may mean attorney’s fees) in the same case? Well, if you are the litigant

DOES CIVIL CODE 1717’S MUTUALITY POLICY TRUMP CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSES WITH GOVERNING LAW THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE FOR PREVAILING PARTY RECOVERY?

Cases: Choice of Law

Appellate Courts Come to Differing Results on Which State Law Governs, But Do Not Dispute That Civil Code section 1717 Is a Fundamental State Policy.             “State’s rights” is not just a constitutional issue. It also enters into play when construing fee entitlement in contracts having foreign state choice of law provisions.

Scroll to Top