Cases: Construction

Construction/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717:  Fees Clause In Masonry Subcontractor-Material Supplier Contract Did Not Trigger Third Party Beneficiary Exposure Against Real Property Owners Who Did Not Prevail Against Material Supplier

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Specific Breadth Of Clause Was Dispositive.             Prince v. Thompson Building Materials, Case No. B280813 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 9, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where real property owners sued a material supplier to enforce contractual warranties under a third-party beneficiary against their masonry subcontractor.  Ultimately, owners lost and material supplier sought to recoup […]

Construction/Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Did Not Err In Awarding Prevailing Subcontractor Assignee Only 35% Of Requested Attorney’s Fees And Costs

Cases: Construction, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Subcontractor Assignee Did Recover $282,915 In Fees/$35,859.85 In Costs Based On Compensatory Award Of $220,045.     In Mako Investments, LLC v. West Coast Contractors of Nevada, Case No. C073867 (3d Dist. Oct. 3, 2016) (unpublished), general contractor (West Coast) and subcontractor (Zephyr, which assigned its claim to an assignee) got into a dispute over

Special Fee Statute Update: United Rigger Decision Accepted For Review By California Supreme Court

Cases: Construction, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Interpretation of Retention Prompt Payment Statute At Issue.      On December 5 and 18, we posted on the 2/1 DCA’s United Rigger decision, which among other things split company with another sister intermediate appellate court on the interpretation of the retention prompt payment statute and accordingly reversed a $150,000 fee award to the then

Construction/POOF!: Losing Subcontractor On Private Project Retention Payment Dispute, Who Won On Appeal, Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Civil Code Section 8818

Cases: Construction, Cases: POOF!

  Subcontractor Hit With $150,000 Fee Award Below, Gets A Reversal Of Fortune—Merits Reversal Of Retention Claim Meant Subcontractor Now Gets To Seek Fees For Being the Winner On Appeal!      Here you may see what’s very rare, The world turn’d upside down; A tree and castle in the air, A man walk on his

Construction/Prevailing Party: Prompt Payment Statutes Do Allow Trial Court With Discretion To Determine If Any Party Actually “Prevailed”

Cases: Construction, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Although Fees Are Mandatory, Prevailing Party Determination Is Threshold Call For Trial Judge Under Prompt Payment Statutes.      James L. Harris Printing & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case No. C072169 (3d Dist. Aug. 27, 2015) (published) was dealing with fee-shifting provisions in some prompt payment statutes, specifically, Business and Professions Code

Construction, Indemnity: Fee Denial Against Winning Subcontractor Under Indemnity Clause Reversed, While Reduced Fee Award In Favor Of Other Winning Contractor Affirmed Except For Minor Modification Upward

Cases: Construction, Cases: Indemnity

  Fee Entitlement Was Present, But Reducing Request For Another Party No Abuse Of Discretion.      Esparza v. PulteGroup, Inc. (Centex), Case No. D063736 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 14, 2015) (unpublished) was a construction defect/personal injury action by several residential homeowners against Centex (which subsequently merged into the PulteGroup), which in turn cross-complained against

Allocation, Construction: Rio School District Decision, On Rehearing, Reaches Same Result On Remanding A “Re-do” Of Attorney’s Fees On Public Contract Code Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction

  Same Result From Decision Surveyed in Our January 28, 2015 Post.      On January 28, 2015, we posted on Rio School District, a Second District, Division 6 decision where a substantial attorney’s fees award was remanded for redetermination after the appellate court determined that an unclean hands defense was legally not cognizable under Public

Allocation, Construction: Fee Award Under Public Contract Code Section 7107 Remanded For Redetermination

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: POOF!

  Appellate Court Ordered Apportionment to Limit Fee Award to Those Incurred Solely to the Section 7107 Claim, Meaning $3.85 Million Fee Recovery Went POOF! For Now.      In FTR International, Inc. v. Rio School Dist., Case No. B238618 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 27, 2015) (partially published; fee discussion published), school district and its

Construction/Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Payment Bond Made Clear That Surety Not Liable To Additional Fees/Costs Above Penal Bond Sum, Party Obtaining Fees In Derogation Of This Limitation Not Entitled to Fees

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

  Only County Entitled to Additional Fees/Costs Over Penal Sum Based on Clear Terms in Payment Bond.      In Granite Constr. Co. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co., Case No. C066759 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished), surety under a payment bond lost an exoneration argument at trial based on a settlement agreement which had a

Scroll to Top