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
Award Is Sustained, But Winning Subcontractor Under Contract With Fees Clause Fights Back Unlicensed General Contractor’s Illegality Argument. Usually, under our category “Unlicensed Contractors,” we are dealing with decisions where an unlicensed contractor wins a dispute with a fees clause and attempts to obtain an award of attorney’s fees—not very successfully. In the next
Second District, Division 7 Finds Reversal of Prejudgment Interest Issue Requires Reexamination of Prevailing Party Determination and the Escrow Instructions Fee Clauses Were Sufficiently Broad for Fee Entitlement Purposes In Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Malibu Escrow Corp., Case No. B203415 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 1, 2010) (unpublished), an apartment building purchaser recovered
$38,000 Fee Award Out of Requested $88,795 Amount Affirmed on Appeal. Civil Code section 1717 does not always govern the award of contractual attorney’s fees. Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 allows the parties to make attorney’s fees agreements, by contract, that go beyond section 1717 dictates, allowing recovery for tort or even other
Substantial Fee Award Reversed Because Fees Provision Did Not Reach Noncontract Recovery, While Rest of Trial Court’s Fee/Costs Orders Affirmed on Appeal. In Gaggero v. First Federal Bank of California, Case No. B207273 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2009) (unpublished), Borrower voluntarily dismissed with prejudice his equitable, statutory and breach of contract claims,
Fourth District, Division 1 Utilizes “Pragmatic” Prevailing Party Test and Determines Narrow Fee Clause Did Not Allow For Recovery on Successful Tort Claim. In a dispute involving a brokerage arrangement with respect to a mobile home, seller won a small compensatory and punitive damages jury verdict against brokers for breach of fiduciary duty, although
Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision. Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law. In The Gifted Schools v. Grahovac Construction Co.,
Fourth District, Division 2 Sustains $382,233.25 Fee Award Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021. As we have reminded readers before, a broad fee clause will frequently give winning litigants a “big bonus” for fee recovery purposes: the broader the clause, the better the chances that noncontractual claims will be found to give rise
Court of Appeal Finds Fee Clause is Broad Enough to Encompass All Three Actions. Under Civil Code section 1717, the key to recovering fees in disputes involving contract and tort claims often devolves to a determination of whether the fee clause is sufficiently broad to encompass matters “arising out of” or “concerning” the
