Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Arbitration/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Interesting Cross-Issue Case–Party Enjoining Arbitration Was Not Adverse Prevailing Party

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

  Court Can Award 1717 Fees With Enforceable Limitations–Such As, Did Adverse Party Acted Arbitrarily, Vexatiously, In Bad Faith Or Unreasonably–You Bethca!      We like Abbey v. Fortune Drive Associates, LLC, Case No. A135062 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2013) (unpublished) for a lot, if not a couple of, reasons: (1) it talks about […]

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Nonsignatory Successor Correctly Exposed To Fee Exposure Where Complaint And Cross-Complaint Sought Interpretation Of Settlement Agreement With A Fees Clause

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

  Primary Right Showed Contractual Dispute Involved.      In CT Glendale, LLC v. Liu, Case No. B241445 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 17, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained $37,612 in Civil Code section 1717 contractual fees in a litigation dispute interpreting which party owned cabinetry under a settlement agreement also containing a fees clause. Plaintiff won

Bankruptcy/Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fees Clause Rescues The Day For Winning Creditor

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

CCP § 1021, Not Civil Code § 1717, Afforded Relief.     In re Charalambous (Hamilton v. Charalambous), BAP No. CC-13-1042-PDKi (BAP 9th Cir. Mem. Decision July 3, 2013) (unpublished) is an illustration of how one needs to carefully pick the basis for fee entitlement. Although Civil Code section 1717 is an attractive first impulse ground,

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Plaintiffs Winning Lease Dispute Under Broad Fees Clause Entitled To $158,180.75 Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Defendant Recovered Less on Cross-Complaint Contractual Claim, So Plaintiffs Prevailed.      Julius Castle Restaurant, Inc. v. Payne, Case Nos. A130955 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 10, 2013) (partially published; fee discussion not published) may be one of the first published cases discussing post-Riverisland factors for the courts and juries to consider after the overruling

Fee Clause Interpretation: Clause With “Prevailing Party” Language Not Limited To Contract Claims Allowed Fees To Plaintiff Prevailing On Negligence Claim But Suffering Defeat On Contract Claim

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  CCP § 1021 Trumped Civil Code § 1717 Rules, With Plaintiff Prevailing “Overall.”       Under Civil Code section 1717, a prevailing party can receive attorney’s fees based on prevailing under a contract claim, even though losing tort claims, if the fees clause is limited to contractual claims. However, if the fee clause is broader,

Fee Clause Interpretation/Homeowner Associations: HOA Not Entitled To Fee Recovery For Fiduciary Duty Victory Because Administration Of CC&Rs Fees Clause Doesn’t Cover Fiduciary Breach Claims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Homeowner Associations

       In Hoofman v. Pacific Crest Community Assn., Case No. B230036 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 16, 2013) (unpublished), an HOA won some breach of fiduciary claims against homeowners. However, they were denied fee recovery. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the win on the breach of fiduciary claims did not fall within the

Fee Clause Interpretation: Specific Performance Claim Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement Under Broadly-Worded Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  $252,926.33 Fee Award Affirmed.      In Milano v. Edelson, Case No. B237971 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 11, 2013) (unpublished), buyer of a restaurant sued a seller for specific performance, deliberately electing that remedy over damages in order to get out to trial earlier. The stock purchase agreement, while lacking a “time is of

Arbitraton/Fee Clause Interpretation: Fee Recovery Under Broadly Worded Clause Justified Even Though Contractor Did Not Pursue Arbitration

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Failure to File a Motion to Compel Arbitration Was Fatal.      Losers in Duke Kelso Constr. v. Silva, Case No. H036879 (6th Dist. Mar. 26, 2013) (unpublished) must have felt good about their chances on appeal under a broadly worded fees clause, where the winner litigated rather than pursued contractually-mandated arbitration. The problem was

Fee Clause Interpretation: “Incorporation By Reference” Of An Exhibit With A Fees Clause Into Contract Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

       Demari v. Desert Oasis Mobile Estates, Case No. F064419 (5th Dist. Mar. 19, 2013) (unpublished) was a situation where plaintiff sued defendants for breach of contract and was defensed through a demurrer which was sustained without leave to amend. Then, the lower court granted attorney’s fees in favor of defendants as prevailing parties.

Appealability/Fee Clause Interpretation/Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees/SLAPP: Appellate Trifecta On Fee Issues

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

  Marathon Funding, LLC v. Paramount Pictures, Case No. B240723 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 4, 2013) (Unpublished).      In this first one, defendant won more than $690,548.90 in posttrial attorney’s fees under an investment agreement providing fees to the winner “in any action, suit, or other proceeding [that] is instituted concerning or arising out

Scroll to Top