Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Prevailing Party And Fee Clause Interpretation Issues: Court Of Appeal Sustains Trial Court Denial Of Fees To Either Side

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

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 […]

Fee Clause Interpretation and 998 Offers: Court Of Appeal Remands $400,000 Fee Award against Contractor But Affirms Separate $296,148.84 Against Contractor In Favor of Subcontractor

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision.      Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law.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.,

Fee Clause Interpretation And Allocation: Substantial Fee Award Affirmed Where Fees Clause Was Broad In Nature And All Claims Based On Same Operative Facts

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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

Fee Clause Interpretation: Landlord Awarded Substantial Attorney Fees For Prevailing In Three Actions Against Feisty Former Tenant

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrowly-Worded Fee Clause Did Not Allow For Fee Recovery By Attorney In Successfully Defending Against Legal Malpractice Action

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds In a Result Consonant With Prior Reviewed Decisions on this Website.      Here is one we have seen before, but bears repeating.      Attorney sues to collect on a receivable owed from a former client, but through a cross-complaint after client sues for legal malpractice. Attorney prevails in both

Civil Code Section 1717: Nonsignatories Who Were Intended To Be Parties Can Be Entitled To Contractual Fee Recovery Even Though Contractual Clauses Are Very Limited In Nature

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 4 Explores Some “Nooks and Crannies” of Section 1717 in Unpublished Opinion.      This next case, albeit unpublished, is a very scholarly discussion of Civil Code section 1717, exploring nonsignatory and fee clause breadth issues. And, best for us, only a challenge to a denial of attorney’s fees is involved. So, with

Broad Fees Clause And Failure To Challenge Excessiveness Of Fee To Winner Spells Trouble For Losing Country Club Members

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms $779,955.97 Postjudgment Fees/Costs Award.      The next case covers several cross-over issues: fees clause interpretation; apportionment between covered and noncovered claims; and reasonableness of fees.      Here we go.      In Urquhart v. Del Mar Country Club, Case No. D052711 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2009) (unpublished), a

Voluntary Dismissal Of Tort Claims: Be Careful—If Contract Clause Allows For Recovery, You May Not Seek Refuge Under Santisas

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 1 Affirms Fee Award to Broker Under Broadly Worded CAR Form Agreement.      Under Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998), a voluntary dismissal will end fee exposure on contract claims. However, there is a hitch (usually is). The dismissal will not necessarily insulate against fee exposure for tort or noncontract claims.

Special Fee Shifting Statute and Fee Clause Interpretation: Singapore Law Governs Non-Statutory Issues

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Preemption, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Ninth Circuit Reverses Denial of Fees Award, Remanding for A New Look in COGSA, Bill of Lading Case.      So what happens when you have a seemingly statutory choice-of-law clause (that means no attorney’s fees) and a contractual clause (that may mean attorney’s fees) in the same case? Well, if you are the litigant

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrowly Drawn Settlement Agreement Fees Provision Applying to Affirmative Enforcement Action Does Not Cover Defensive Use

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fourth District, Division 1 Finds Gil v. Mansano Persuasive.      The next case demonstrates that both trial and appellate courts will interpret contractual fee clauses by their terms—if the scope is narrow, the fee recovery will be narrow and restricted in application.      In Tesh v. LeTourneau, Case No. D052873 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May

Scroll to Top