Cases: Estoppel

Allocation/Estoppel/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: Real Estate Buyer’s Tort Claims Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure Under Narrowly-Worded Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Sellers Were Liable To Third-Party For Losing Their Contractual/Indemnity Claims, Which Were Intertwined And Needed No Apportionment.      Real estate buyer lost tort/statutorily-based nondisclosure claims to the sellers in a dispute where a purchase agreement had a fees clause mandating fees in an action brought “with respect to the subject matter of enforcement […]

Estoppel/Fee Clause Interpretation: Winning Subcontractor In Contractual Litigation Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Where Contract Clause Only Applied To Arbitration

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Contract Crystal Clear, Meaning $172,850.02 Fee Award Went POOF!      This one had to hurt.      In Ponce v. Philco Construction, Inc., Case No. G049097 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 21, 2014) (unpublished), contractor Philco subcontracted work out on a Moreno Valley auto service store to subcontractor Ponce, who was not paid for all

Estoppel/Section 1717: Contract Only Allowing For Recovery Of Costs, Not Specifying Attorney’s Fees, Did Not Give Rise To Fee Recovery

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Prevailing Party Did Get Routine, Non-Fee Costs Based on Waiver/Inadequate Record on Appeal.      In Yamtob v. Alon, Case No. B247453 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 31, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a dispute to defendant/cross-complainant, who certainly obtained a net recovery judgment against plaintiff arising out of a diamond transaction. (Fitting over the

Estoppel/RFAs/Section 1717: Denial Of Fees To Nonsignatory Defendants And $45,000 Against Defendants For “Costs Of Proof” Sanctions Based On Three RFA Denials Upheld

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717

  This Case Cuts Across Several Issue Categories. Two painted bronze “golfers” compare notes.  Carol M. Highsmith Collection.  Library of Congress.      Masters v. Burton, Case Nos. B234555/B239447 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 25, 2013) (unpublished) is a case about errant golf balls and litigation claiming concealment of the golf ball “hazard” in connection with

Estoppel: Judgment Debtors Resisting Prior Amendment Of Judgment To Include Trustees In Representative Capacities Were Properly Assessed With Additional Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Estoppel

  Judgment Debtors’ Additional Fees Were a “Self-Inflicted Wound,” So To Speak.      Pacific Western Bank v. Prospect Village LP, Case Nos. G045790 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2013) (unpublished), authored on behalf of a 3-0 panel by Justice Moore, is categorized under our estoppel category, although it is also a “self-inflicted

Estoppel/Equity/Section 998: Lawyer Collection and Client Malpractice Actions Barred By Oral “We Go Our Own Way Agreement,” Which Violated State Bar Professional Conduct Rule 3-400(B), But Could Could Be Enforced By Winning Clients

Cases: Equity, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 998

  Clients’ Section 998 Offer Was Invalid Based on Absence of Acceptance Language, So Expert Witness Fees Recoverable.      Law Offices of Roger E. Naghash v. Roy, Case No. G044785 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 4, 2012) (unpublished) is a wild dispute between former clients and an attorney arising from clients’ prior loss of a

Indemnity/Judicial Estoppel: Defense Fee Denial Request Affirmed … Defense Based Erroneous Recovery On A True Indemnity Clause, Not A True Fees Clause

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Indemnity

  Style and Substance of Indemnity Provision Supported the Denial Result, With Judicial Estoppel Argument Based on International Billing Services Not Prevailing.      Ni v. Yuan, Case No. B2347744 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 31, 2012) (unpublished) is yet another decision where defendants appealed a fee denial order, only to be affirmed because the defense

Indemnity/Judicial Estoppel: $450,000 Plus Attorney’s Fees Award Gets Reversed When Appellate Court Determines Only A True Indemnification Clause Involved

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Indemnity

  Judicial Estoppel Doctrine Also Found Inapt for Awarding Fees to Winning Appellate Parties, Noting International Billing Rationale Not Embraced by California Supreme Court.      Plaintiffs (lenders) must have been feeling pretty good after garnering a $450,000 plus attorney’s fees award from defendants (borrowers) based upon a simple indemnification provision which was found to have

Arbitration/Estoppel: Judicial Estoppel Puts The Kabosh On Appeal Claiming Fees Clause Did Not Cover Fees Incurred In Court Proceedings To Confirm Arbitration Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Estoppel

  Court of Appeal Was Not Pleased With Appellant’s Inconsistent Positions.       Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine aimed at preventing litigants from taking two totally inconsistent positions in different phases of litigation–or prevent “playing fast and loose” with the judicial system or “gaming the system” by taking such inconsistent positions. (Uhrich v. State Farm

Year in Review – 2011

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Pleading, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Year in Review

Wrapping It Up:  M & M’s Top 25 Attorney’s Fees Decisions For 2011  Part 1 of 2      It is that time of year, at year end, for us to list our top published attorney’s fees decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and California Courts of Appeal. Although we normally

Scroll to Top