$78,250 Fee Award In Favor Of Individual Litigant Gets Reversed. For litigators of all ages, we have come to appreciate that the “hat” worn by a litigant frequently may play a determinative role in the course of a lawsuit. This next case we discuss exemplifies this very well. One individual defendant won […]
Dismissal of Recission Count Preclude Fee Recovery. The message from the next case is be careful of what claims you dismiss during the progress of a case on behalf of a client plaintiff. If you have a narrowly worded fees clause, dismissal of a contractually based claim (such as rescission) may end any
$74,124 in Fees/$1,529.40 to Successor Trustees Were the Winning Awards. Portico Management Group, LLC v. Harrison, Case No. C062060 (3d Dist. Dec. 28, 2011) (unpublished) is a chilling opinion–forget that it is the Holidays that are not as chilly in California as other areas of the country–both about making sure proper parties are
$178,000 Fee Award Went POOF! De novo review of a fees clause can be trouble for any litigant, appellant or respondent, on appeal. This means the appellate courts put their contractual interpretation “hats” on to see if the construction passes muster. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t. Doesn’t was the verdict in
Case Fell Between the Cracks of Unnamed Parties and Third Party Beneficiary Cases, Fifth District Rules. The Fifth District, in Cargill, Inc. v. Souza, Case No. F061767 (5th Dist. Dec. 9, 2011) (certified for publication), reversed a decision denying requested attorney’s fees to an unsecured creditor claiming it was a third party beneficiary
CCP § 1021 Was the Basis. A $37,369 fee award against plaintiffs and in favor of defendants was affirmed in Higuera v. La Carreta Supermarkets, Inc., Case No. G044286 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 2, 2011) (unpublished), in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Bedsworth. Here is what happened. Plaintiffs instigated a hybrid
Breadth of Language Made the Difference in this One. Here is an interesting one that confirms that the breadth of language in a fees clause can make a difference. It especially did here, where the parties waived arbitration rights but the fees clause, but the use of “proceeding” language was broad enough to
Substantial Fee Recovery Allowed We know of nothing proprietary, so here is a fees clause contained in a LLC Operating Agreement that reaped one party a truck load of fees: “If any party to this Agreement institutes any action, suit, counterclaim, appeal, arbitration or mediation for any relief against another party, declaratory or
$35,000 Fee Award Vacated By Second District, Division 5. Where the contents of a contractual fees clause is clear in nature (with no factual disputes), this sets up an issue of law that an appellate court can review de novo. (Winet v. Price, 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165-1166 (1992).) That is exactly what happened
Second District, Division 2 Answers the Question Under Civil Code Section 1717. We have seen numerous contracts that have attorney’s fees clauses that read something like this: “In any action between the parties arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, including any collection attempts should Payment not be timely made, the prevailing
