Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Interpretation: 4/3 DCA Reverses Denial Of Fees To Defendant Because Trial Court Made No Finding Whether Defendant Was A Landlord And A Party To A Lease

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Plaintiffs’ Lawsuit For Various Counts Relating To A One-Year Lease Did Arise Under Broad Language In The Fees Clause.                In S&S Engineering and Construction v. Van Swae, Case No. G062352 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 13, 2025) (unpublished), a lower court’s order denying a fees motion to a possible landlord under a one-year lease […]

Appealability, Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation: Lower Court’s Grant Of Expert Fee Costs To Defendant And Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defendant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Lack Of Adequate Record Doomed Both Appeals, But They Also Failed On The Merits.                In Paige v. Nolan, Case No. B322162 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 13, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff refused a CCP § 998 offer in a legal malpractice case, with defendant attorney winning.  The lower court did award attorney some expert witness

Fee Clause Interpretation, Poof!, Trade Secrets: Defendant Defeating Contractual Damages Claims Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Where Fees Clause Only Applied To Equitable/injunctive Relief Wins

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Trade Secrets

Results Is That $533,086.19 Fee Award Went POOF! On Appeal.                 The next case is a continuation of a case we earlier posted on, Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 556, discussed in our March 11, 2024 post.  There, plaintiff obtained preliminary and then later permanent injunctions against defendant in a trade

Fee Clause Interpretation: Tenant Winning Damages Under Municipal Code And Statutory Provisions Properly Awarded Fees Even Though Rental Agreement Precluded Fee Recovery On Contractual Claims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Statutory Entitlement To Fees Was Independent From Recovery Under A Contractual Fees Clause.                In Dostie v. Marowitz, Case Nos. A168780 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 22, 22, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff tenant won $60,000 in damages against defendant former landlord for failure to maintain the premises, gender discrimination, and emotional distress.  Defendant landlord

Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: Settlement Agreement Language Only Allowed Enforcement Activities Associated With The Settlement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

Other Non-Settlement Activities Were Improperly Awarded As Attorney’s Fees.                Bodero & Associates, Inc. v. Gorman, Case No. A168856 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 20, 2024) (unpublished) is a good example as to when four-corner contractual interpretation will govern a fee dispute, unfortunately requiring a limited remand.  Parties entered into a settlement agreement with standard

Fee Clause Interpretation: Based On A Broad Fee Clause, The Lower Court Correctly Construed An Option Agreement And Awarded Over $1.371 Million In Fees

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Shows How Fee Motions Can Be Mini-Trials On Interpretation Of Fee Clauses.                In Preservation, Finance, Rehabilitation & Development, LP v. Associated Financial Corp., Case No. B325694 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 13, 2024) (unpublished), defendant won a bench trial in a complex loan transaction case, with the lower court awarding defendant prevailing party fees

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Prevailing Defendant’s Dismissal Of Cross-Complaint After Winning Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Santisas Rule Applied, With Dismissed Cross-Complaint Only Raising Contractual Claims.                In Colaco v. Marcum LLP, Case No. B326252 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 30, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff sued his accounting firm for misrepresentation after losing money in some investments, with the defendant obtaining summary judgment and then voluntarily dismissing a cross-complaint containing indemnity and

Fee Clause Interpretation, Judgment Enforcement, Section 1717: $70,635 Attorney’s Fees Award Favorable To Nonsignatory To A Contract, Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Nonsignatory Did Not Seek To Enforce The Contract, With No Judgment Enforcement Fees Available To The Nonsignatory.                Crooymans v. Foumberg, Case No. B325110 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 18, 2024) (unpublished) is a stark reminder that a nonsignatory to a contract, more often than not, does not face fee exposure under

Appealability, Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation: Prevailing Party In Appellate Writ Proceeding Was Entitled To Small Routine Costs, But Not Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Appeal Costs Order Was Appealable, But There Was No Fee Entitlement Basis—Estoppel Argument Was Rejected.             In Kaur v. Pabla, Case No. F086273 (5th Dist. May 14, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs obtained an appellate writ mandate order and moved for appellate costs, both routine expenses and attorney’s fees.  In the end, the routine cost of $775

Construction, Fee Clause Interpretation: Because Surety’s 2010 Contract Had A Fees Clause, It Was Erroneous To Deny Fees Based On A 2015 Contract Having No Such Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

2015 Contract Necessarily Referenced The 2010 Contract, So Remand Was Necessary To Determine If Fee Allocation Was Necessary And The Reasonableness Of Surety’s Request.                In FEI Enterprises, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., Case No. B329502 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 4, 2024) (unpublished), surety won a summary judgment against its general contractor for

Scroll to Top