Cases: Estoppel

Post-Memorial Day Unpublished Troika: Reduced Fee Award Reversed; Res Judicata Supports Another Fee Award; Implied Covenant’s Operation Justifies Finding Opt-In Defendants Not Liable For Fee In Proposition 65 Case

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  $23,600 Fee Award Out of Requested $223,615.50 Reversed in Civil Rights Case.      In Williams v. Hei Long Beach, LLC, Case No. B224211 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 31, 2011) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a fee award of $23,600 out of attorneys’ requested $223,615.50 in an Unruh Civil Rights hotel accommodation case resulting […]

Probate: Second District, Division Three Concludes That Res Judicata Prevented Respondents from Relitigating Probate Dispute, and Also Deprived Trial Court of Grounds to Determine that Appellant Had to Pay Fees and Costs

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Probate

Probate Case Has Nice Summary of Principles of Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel      The Court of Appeals early on telegraphed the train wreck that is this case with the understated observation, “The relationship between the siblings was not optimal.” Estate of Redfield, Case No. B216190 (2nd Dist. Div. 3 4/5/11) (certified for publication).

Homeowner Associations: Attorney’s Fees Clauses In Unrecorded CC&R Enforcement Committee Manuals Did Not Create Enforceable Fee Clauses In The Absence Of Amending The CC&Rs

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Homeowner Associations

Third District Issues Important Decision in the CC&R Enforcement Area.      The Third District in Ferwerda v. Bordon, Case No. C062389 (3d Dist. Mar. 25, 2011) (certified for partial publication on the fee issue) has decided an important case with respect to enforcing attorney’s fees clauses contained in unrecorded CC&R enforcement documents and manuals. In

Estoppel: Prevailing Party Determination In Anti-SLAPP Fee Award Proceeding Entitled To Direct Estoppel Effect In Subsequent Action

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: SLAPP

  Third District Gives Direct Collateral Estoppel Impact to Prior Ruling in Convoluted Real Estate Option Dispute.      Here is an interesting decision where the fee ruling in a prior SLAPP proceeding was given direct estoppel effect in a subsequent action. This is how it panned out.      South Sutter, LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners

Section 1717: Nonsignatory Cross-Complainant Not Liable For Fees Under Contractual Fee Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 2 Applies Classic Reciprocity Principles Under 1717.      Baker v. Oleander Corp., Case No. B221193 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 8, 2010) (unpublished) is another reminder of how reciprocity principles under Civil Code section 1717 operate in cases involving contractual nonsignatory and signatory litigants. It also shows how trial courts will apportion

Judicial Estoppel: Appealing Party Estopped To Challenge Referee Fee Split Based On Prior Pleadings

Cases: Costs, Cases: Estoppel

Second District, Division 5 Applies “Inconsistent Position” Doctrine in Challenge to Allocation of Referee Fees.      What follows is an interesting application of the judicial estoppel doctrine in the referee fee allocation area. This doctrine is a good one to have in any litigator’s arsenal, especially in this age of modern litigation where litigants and

Indemnity Clauses: Escrow Company Not Entitled To Fee Award Because Indemnity Clause Did Not Allow For First Party Recoupment Of Fees

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: POOF!

Second District, Division 8 Follows Myers-Campbell-Carr Line of Cases In a Scholarly Unpublished Decision.      In our category “Indemnity,” we have surveyed cases where attorney’s fees have and have not been awarded where contracts contain indemnity clauses. The result frequently depends on the wording of the clauses. If the clauses only really cover exposure relating

Homeowner Associations: Losing Condo Homeowners Associations Not Subject To Fee Exposure When Losing Action Against Past Board Member Defendants

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717

Purchase Agreement Fees Clause Did Not Apply Because Plaintiff Was Not A Condo Buyer.      One of the first rules of fee entitlement is that you need a contractual or statutory basis to trump the American Rule that each sides bears its own attorney’s fees in a case. That principle sunk the winning defendants’ request

Scroll to Top