Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Where A Broad Contractual Fees Clause Governed Any Dispute Between The Parties, Fees For Prevailing On A Successful Forum Selection Motion in California Gave Rise To Fees Under CCP §§ 1021, 1032, And 1033.5

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717 Did Not Give Rise To Fees Based Upon DisputeSuite Opinion. This opinion highlights the importance of wording in a fees clause.  Broader language, such as “the prevailing party in any dispute or proceeding arising hereunder shall be entitled to recovery its costs and expenses incurred therein (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses),” can […]

Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $599,370 Attorney’s Fees Award Under A Settlement Agreement Confirmed Because Challenging Party Waived An Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement, Miscellaneous

Case Also Has A Good Discussion Of Trial Court Retention Of Jurisdiction To Enforce A Settlement After The 1993 Amendment To CCP § 664.6. Hutchinson v. Lewis Towing 2, Inc., Case No. F088314 (5th Dist. Jan. 27, 2026) (unpublished) has a good discussion on two issues:  (1) retention of jurisdiction against dismissed defendants under CCP

Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Winning Tort Claims, But Losing One Contract Claim Against Some Defendants, Was Not Exposed To Attorney’s Fees By Two Set Of Defendants

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Prevailing Party

In Fact, Because He Prevailed, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fees Against One Set Of Defendants, But Not A Nonsignatory Because He Only Brought Tort Claims. Appeals, although the odds are against them, can sometimes result in a reversal of fortune.   That did occur in Moses v. Rok Drinks, Ltd., Case No. B339392 (2d Dist., Div.

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation: Broad Fees Clause Allowed Law Firm To Recover Both Trial and Appellate Fees For Prevailing In An Action/Appeal Attempting To Void An Arbitration Agreement

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Total Fees to Law Firm Came To $416,680.30. Fee-shifting can be a game changer in litigation, including litigation relating to an arbitration where the fees clause is broad in nature.  Plaintiff client learned that lesson all too well in litigation against his former counsel, as demonstrated by Milder v. Holley, Case No. B331152 (2d Dist.,

Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Parties In A Residential Landlord-Tenant Dispute Stipulated To No Recovery Of Fees Or Costs Beyond $1,000, That Cap Was Enforceable

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

$14,000 In Routine Costs Reversed Because It Exceeded The $1,000 Cap.                Freedom of contract was the theme resonating in the result in Gogal v. Deng, Case No. D084158 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 22, 2025) (published).  The case was a residential landlord-tenant dispute where tenants were prevailing parties but had a contractual lease clause

Fee Clause Interpretation: 4/3 DCA Affirms Substantial Fees Award Against Tenants In A Dana Point Harbor Slip Dispute

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Lower Court Cut Fees Request In Half, Which Was Erroneous, But Respondent’s Failure To Appeal Means The Reduction Did Not Aggrieve Appellants, the Tenants.                In Papageorges v. Dana Point Harbor Partners, Case No. G063688 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 20, 2025) (unpublished), the upshot from this opinion is that a respondent may want to

Construction, Costs, Ethics, Indemnity, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $4.176M Contractual Fee Award To General Contractor And Against Owner Affirmed On Appeal, But Expert Witness Costs Award To General Contractor Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Construction, Cases: Costs, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

Case Explores Fee Clause Interpretation, An Award Of Fees To An Unlicensed Associate Supervised By A California Attorney, And An Award Of Expert Witness Costs Which Were Not Pled Or Proven As Damages.                The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. 250 Fourth Development LP, Case No. A169470 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 13, 2025) (unpublished) is

Fee Clause Interpretation: Losing Party To An Oral Agreement To Foreclose On A Property Was Not Liable For Fees Under A Promissory Note

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Losing Party Was Not A Signatory To The Note, And The Foreclosure Oral Agreement Was Separate From The Note.                Kim v. Kim, Case No. B336809 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 14, 2025) (unpublished) involved a fight between plaintiffs and defendants over an oral agreement to foreclose property, with plaintiffs paying $25,000 under that agreement

Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Pleadings And Testimony Showed That A Brochure With A Fees Clause Applied To Services Different Than The Ones In Dispute, Trial Judge’s Conclusions That The Two Transactions Were Not Integrated Supported A Denial Of Fees

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

The Pleadings And Trial Testimony Supported That Result.                Plaintiff restoration company won a $452,422 jury verdict against defendant apartment owner for water restoration services, then moving to recover $260,215 in attorney’s fees based on a fees clause in a prior brochure involving different apartment turn services which were paid off by apartment owner.  The

Fee Clause Interpretation, Reasonableness Of Fees: Fee Clause Stating Recovery For Third-Party Costs For Collection Encompassed Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Trial Court Properly Reduced $124,160 Fee Request To $64,750 To Prevailing Party Based On Partial Success, Under A Percentage Of Recovery And A Lodestar Analysis.                Pulse Technology Consulting Group, Inc. v. Skowron & Bunning, LLP, Case No. C098036 (3d Dist. Feb. 11, 2025 partially published; fee discussion published) involved dueling actions about an information

Scroll to Top