Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories: $1,062,813.20 Fee Award In Favor Of Corporate Executives And Directors Is Affirmed On Appeal In Contentious Battle Involving Contracts Between Plaintiff And Banc Of California Executives/Directors

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories

Fee Clause Broadly Encompassed Any Dispute Resulting In Litigation, Executives/Directors Were Fee Clause Nonsignatories Entitled To Fees, And No Apportionment Was Needed Given Breadth Of Fees Clause. In Sugarman v. Benett, Case No. B338610 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 3, 2026) (unpublished), there was contentious, aggressive litigation involving plaintiff and his trust (plaintiff being a […]

Fee Clause Interpretation, Partition, Section 1717: Denial Of 1717 Fees Reversed; Grant Of Partition Fees Reversed But Without Prejudice To Renew In The Future

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

Gives A Potential Litigant Over A Jointly Inherited House A Chance To Obtain Some Trial And Appellate Fees In The Future. Tran v. Tran, Case No. H052186 (6th Dist. July 28, 2026) (unpublished) involved a real dispute between two siblings jointly inheriting a house from their father.  As many cases devolve to, the main clash

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717:  Attorney’s Fees Award In Favor Of Non-Signatory, Alter Ego Targets Was Reversed And Remanded

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

On Remand, Only Contract Claim Work Could be Awarded, Not On Non-Contract Claims—Lower Court Vested With Discretion To Allocate On Remand. McCain v. Edwards, Case No. C101256 (3d Dist. May 14, 2026) (unpublished) is a very contested case where, eventually, some non-signatory, alter ego targets evaded exposure where the contract between the predicate signatory and

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Where Defendant Minimally Prevailed On A Declaratory Relief Claim But County Avoided $6 Million Exposure On A Negligent Misrepresentation Count, County Was Entitled To Over $800,000 In Attorney’s Fees And A Little Under $24,000 In Costs Under A Contractual Fee Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Under A Broad Contractual Fees Clause, The Lower Court Can Determine The Prevailing Party—Much To The Chagrin Of A Losing Party. We have posted for years as bloggers.  We are not judges, nor pretend to be.  But we can say certain themes prevail in many cases we have posted on: (1) broad contractual fee clauses

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

Scroll to Top