Cases: Estoppel

Appealability, Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation: Prevailing Party In Appellate Writ Proceeding Was Entitled To Small Routine Costs, But Not Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Appeal Costs Order Was Appealable, But There Was No Fee Entitlement Basis—Estoppel Argument Was Rejected.             In Kaur v. Pabla, Case No. F086273 (5th Dist. May 14, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs obtained an appellate writ mandate order and moved for appellate costs, both routine expenses and attorney’s fees.  In the end, the routine cost of $775 […]

Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Lower Court’s Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Plaintiffs In CC&R Flag Pole Placement Dispute Was An Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Judicial Estoppel Applied And Plaintiffs Were The Unqualified Winners.                In Rowan v. Hilliard, Case No. D081687 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 29, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed against defendants/cross-complainants in a flag pole placement dispute under CC&Rs, which had a fees clause giving the lower court the authority (“shall have the authority”) to award reasonable

Estoppel: Given That Prior Judgment Was Barred By Judicial Estoppel, Subsequent Fee Award Of $167,044 Based On Contractual Fees Clause Was Proper

Cases: Estoppel

“Law Of The Case” Doctrine Applied With Respect To Validity Of Prior Judgment.             In Hume v. Hume, Case No. A161616 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 8, 2022) (unpublished), appellant tried to argue that a judgment was void even though, if it was valid, the judgment gave rise to fee exposure.  The trial court did

Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation: A Little Over $320,000 Fee Award Gets Reversed As A Matter Of Law Because The Clause Did Not Cover The Scope of the Adjudicated Dispute

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Interpretation Of Fee Clause Wording Is A Fertile De Novo Review Issue For Losing Litigants Facing Fee Exposure.             On appeal, one of the best issues is whether there is fee entitlement. In many disputes, this means does the fee clause cover the dispute which was adjudicated before a court or jury?  If the answer

Estoppel, Section 1717: After Reversal of Prior Judgment Finding No Easement, Defendant HOA Was Properly Awarded $731,682.08 In Section 1717 Fees And $111,540.01 In Costs

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Judicial Estoppel Did Apply Against Plaintiffs Where They Litigated The Position That The Easement Maintenance Agreements Had Fee Clauses, And Were Awarded Fees Before Prior Reversal.             Ranch at the Falls LLC v. Indian Springs Homeowners Assn., Inc., Case No. B311278 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 10, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how a change of fortune

Choice of Law, Estoppel, Intellectual Property: Attorney’s Fees Properly Denied In Entirety To Plaintiff Winning Only 7.89% Of Total Damages, After Apportionment, In Copyright Infringement Suit

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Intellectual Property

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

Estoppel, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court’s Conclusion That It Lacked Jurisdiction To Entertain Motion To Enforce Settlement Means That Neither Side Could Be Prevailing Party

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Motion Was Not On The Contract, Opposing Side Was Not Estopped From Denying Fee Exposure, And Prevailing Party Determination Was Premature In Nature.             The Fourth District, Division 1, in Howeth v. Coffelt, Case No. D072543 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2018) (unpublished) (Howeth II), had to deal with one side’s appeal of an

Estoppel/Section 1717: Nonsignatories To Operating Agreement Not Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

  Recovery on Fiduciary Duty Aiding/Abetting Count Not Justify Fees, Even Though Plaintiff Recovered $7.1 Million Jury Verdict.      Plaintiff recovering a $7.1 million jury verdict on a fiduciary duty aiding/abetting count was not happy when a fees motion was denied. Plaintiff appealed from the fee denial in American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners

Estoppel/Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Long-Standing Dispute Over L.A. Metro Red Line Subway Performance Looks Like It Is Winding To A Conclusion

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee Exposure Frenzy Did Play Out on Appeal.      Tutor-Saliba-Perini J.V. v. L.A. County Metro. Transp. Auth., Case No. B232372 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 16, 2014) (unpublished) ultimately came down to a situation of what party might obtain attorney’s fees in a two decades battle over compensation owed for work on the Los

Estoppel: Unappealed First Fee Order Determining Individuals Were Jointly/Severally Liable With Losing Company Collaterally Estopped Same Liability Determination In Second Fees Motion Order

Cases: Estoppel

  Failure to Appeal the First Fees Order Was Fatal.      If you got an adverse determination in a prior fees order, you better appeal or else potentially suffer the bite of the collateral estoppel doctrine. Losing individuals learned that painful lesson in Harris v. Save the Queen, LLC, Case No. B249533 (2d Dist., Div.

Scroll to Top