$15,286 Fee Award Affirmed Against Limited Partners Joining Unsuccessful Petition to Wind Up Partnership. When a contractual fees clause covers “any dispute,” such broad language usually gives rise to fee entitlement. It did in the next case we look at. In LaRocca v Briasco, Case No. B217071 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 14, […]
It Does Not Apply to Someone Simply Defending An Action. In our category "Mediation," we have explored many decisions entertaining the issue of when attorney’s fees are properly awarded under California real estate purchase agreements with attorney’s fees clauses mandating mediation as a condition precedent to fee recovery. Here is another decision on the
Appellate Court Strikes Attorney’s Fees Award of $9,350 in Favor of Plaintiff. In Legal Service Bureau, Inc. v. Mostafavi, Case No. G041804 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 4, 2010) (unpublished), our local Santa Ana appellate court dealt with a lower court judgment awarding $9,350 to plaintiff under an attorney’s fees clause of an agreement
Second District, Division 1 Affirms and Remands to Award Fees on Appeal. Levaton v. Levaton, Case No. B213730 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 24, 2010) (unpublished) involved a family real estate deal gone bust, with the trial court ultimately awarding one side rescission. An initial appeal affirmed most of the judgment, but remanded to
Fee Motion Found Timely and Declaratory Relief Action Was “On the Contract” for Purposes of Justifying the Award. We knew that this next case was going to be a crazy one, when Acting Presiding Justice Yegan wrote, “Within a year or so, [the] relationship [between neighbors] had deteriorated from a warm friendship to
Tort Claims Were Not Covered, Others Were, and Some Needed to be Revisited. The Sixth District, in a scholarly unpublished 3-0 opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Bamattre-Manoukian, has a very thoughtful discussion of the breadth of a fees clause in a promissory note when plaintiffs prevailed on professional negligence and vendor’s lien claims,
First District, Division 2 Panel Has Very Divergent Perspectives on Breadth of Fee Clause. Here is a very interesting unpublished decision about the interpretation of a CAR form fee clause in a brokerage contract. The main dispute centered upon the interpretation of the scope of this provision: “In any action, proceeding or arbitration
Third District Finds Settlement Agreement Carve-Out Preserved Right to Seek Fees Under Indemnity Agreement Clause. Bravo to the attorneys representing a prevailing party in the next case. They properly worded a partial settlement agreement carve-out so as to preserve their client’s ability to seek fees under a contract once the client prevailed against
Second District, Division 4 So Holds, Noting No Decisions On Point. We have examined numerous cases that have denied an award of attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 because of the limitation set forth in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995), holding that in pro per attorneys representing themselves cannot obtain fee
Second District, Division 6 Also Holds Fees Do Not Have To Be Apportioned. Broad contractual language allowing for fee recovery “in any lawsuit or other legal proceeding to which this Agreement gives” can even grant entitlement to fee recovery with respect to tort claims. (Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342-1343
