Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Fraud-Based Claim Upon Narrow Unilateral Fees Clause Was Not Broad Enough To Allow Fees To Prevailing Fraud Plaintiffs

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

However, Appellate Court Reversal Of Guaranty Rescission Denial Did Trigger Fee Recovery Under Broad Bilateral Fees Clause.             If readers follow us over the years (or if you are new to us, welcome), the actual wording of a contractual attorney’s fees clause can be critical in terms of whether it allows fee entitlement.  The disparate […]

Appeal Sanctions, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Absence Of Appropriate Fees Clause Doomed Prevailing Defendants’ Request For $621,328.34 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

However, Plaintiffs/Appellants And Their Appellate Counsel Sanctioned $44,654.64 For Frivolous Appeal.             In J.B.B. Investment Partners Ltd. v. Fair, Case Nos. A152877/A153698 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 4, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed on a breach of contract count through a summary adjudication motion based on defendants’ breach of a settlement agreement and a lot of

Fee Clause Interpretation: Fee Clause In PPM Did Not Cover Plaintiffs’ Negligence “Lost Investment” Lawsuit

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Broader Language Might Have Led To A Different Result.             Defendant won a negligent “lost investment” lawsuit brought by plaintiffs where there was a private placement memorandum (PPM) with an attorney’s fees clause.  The clause stated:  “If either party commences litigation for the judicial interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation, or rescission hereof, or for damages (including

Fee Clause Interpretation: “Successor/Agent” Provision In Purchase Agreement Properly Led To Fee Award In Favor Of Prevailing Defendant Agent, Where Plaintiff Did Not Object To Instruction Stating Defendant Was An Agent

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

$143,775 Was The Fee Tally/$11,438 Was The Costs Tally, With The Appellate Court Chiding Losing Plaintiff For Disparaging Trial Judge And Engaging In “Apophasis.”             In Mayhew Plaza Woodland Hills II, LLC v. Kelsey, Case No. G055668 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 30, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff purchaser sued defendant seller and defendant agent

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 998: Parking Lot Operator Entitled To Attorney’s Fees From Losing Lessee, But Whether Expert Witness Fees Allowed Had To Be Determined On Remand

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 998

Trial Court Erroneously Allowed Them Under CCP § 998, But Parking Lot Contract Clause Needed To Be Restudied On Remand To See If Operator Obtains Expert Witness Fees.             In PCAM, LLC v. Bally Total Fitness of California, Inc., Case No, B277637/B285308 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), parking lot owner, operator, and

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Defendant Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Really Obtained All Of Its Relief As The Prevailing Party Under Broad Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Defendant Was Denied Fees, But It Did Not Independently Appeal—Maybe Should Have!             In MBK Properties LLC v. San Diego Beer Co., Inc., Case No. G055856 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), seller/plaintiff sold a commercial parcel to buyer/defendant under a written purchase and sale agreement (PSA) which had a contractual fees clause

Fee Clause Interpretation: Fee Clause In Rental Agreement Enforced As To Additional Appellate Fees Assessed Against Losing Party

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

However, Losing Party’s Failure To Appeal Earlier Fee Award Led To The Equitable Resolution By The Appellate Court.             Adams v. Easley, Case No. C081016 (3d Dist. May 23, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting case where an in pro per tenant plaintiff was assessed with additional appellate fees of $7,548 in favor of landlord in

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Post-Arbitration Fee Request Denied Because Contract For Which Entitlement Sought Was Never Submitted For Judicial Review

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Myriads Of Other Bases For Fee Entitlement, First Introduced On Appeal, Rejected.             If you are going to seek fee recovery, make sure you put forth all of your bases for fee entitlement at the trial court level. The fee claimant in Glass v. Veros Credit, LLC, Case No. G055257 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April

Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation, Homeowner Associations, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Denied Fee Recovery To Prevailing Defendants Under Davis-Stirling Act Or Civil Code Section 1717 And Properly Struck The Costs Memorandum

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717

Action Was Based On Tort, Not CC&Rs; Fee Clause Did Not Reach Tort Claims Under Section 1717; And Defendants Failed To Apportion Costs As Between Themselves.             In the fee area, you must have a solid fee entitlement basis and you usually have to apportion costs where there are several prevailing defendants rather than claim

Scroll to Top