No Apportionment Needed, Fourth District, Division 3 Rules. In the next case, there was a broad attorney’s fees clause that awarded fees to the prevailing party in any action “founded in tort, contract, or equity that in any way [relates to] the contract or is brought because of an alleged dispute in connection
Appellants Had Only Contested Amount of Fees Below, Not Raising Problems With Fee Entitlement. Here is one from the Third District that serves to underscore a crucial lesson for both trial and appellate practitioners: raise challenges at the lower court level or risk having them declared waived at the appellate level. That happened
$401,654 on Sole Contract Claim Sustained on Appeal by Sixth District. In this category, the breadth of a fees clause may be case determinative when measured against the actual claims or cross-claims brought by a party. No more and no less, as the next case demonstrates–with the appellate court carefully analyzing the cross-claims at
Fifth District Finds No Novation Under the Circumstances. Here is a contractual interpretation/novation case that presents a set of circumstances we have not reported on to date. In Miller v. London Properties, Case No. F059259 (5th Dist. Jan. 13, 2011) (unpublished), defendant brokers prevailed in a contractual dispute with plaintiffs over their purchase
Second District, Division 6 Affirms $210,697.50 Fee Award. Judges, as much as anyone, do try to be pragmatic in awarding fees, which are frequently based on equitable considerations. Here is one illustrating that principle, even though the breadth of the fees clause and intertwinement of issues well supported the result legally. In
Second District, Division Reverses Trial Court’s Decision to Not Entertain Fee Request on the Merits. In C-1 Construction v. Choi, Case No. B217012 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 3, 2010) (unpublished), C-1 obtain a compensatory award from defendants based on claims it was not allowed to finish certain construction work agreed to under an
Settlement Agreement Fees Clause Was Broad, Making Blickman Inapt. The breadth of a fees clause will often determine whether Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity principles apply. For example, very narrow clauses were found not to give rise to reciprocity in Blickman Turkus, L.P. v. MF Downtown Sunnyvalle, LLC, 162 Cal.App.4th 858 (2008) and Real
$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
