Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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Second District, Division 4 Explores Some “Nooks and Crannies” of Section 1717 in Unpublished Opinion.      This next case, albeit unpublished, is a very scholarly discussion of Civil Code section 1717, exploring nonsignatory and fee clause breadth issues.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

Nearly $900,000 In Attorney’s Fees Affirmed In Billboard Litigation

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

  Second District, Division 3 Finds Defendant Lessors Prevailed Despite Claim of “Triplicative” Work By Three Law Firms.      The next one is a wild one and illustrates that substantial attorney’s fees will be awarded under Civil Code section 1717 once the court determines which litigants “prevailed” by achieving their main objectives in the germane

Retainer Agreements: Quantum Meruit Award of $22,670.24 To Discharged Contingency Fee Attorney, After Offsets, Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Fourth District, Division 2 Construes “Recovery” Fee Retainer Language Against Drafting Attorney.      The next decision demonstrates that practitioners need to be careful how they draft retainer agreements. Because the drafter is usually an attorney, any ambiguity will likely be construed in favor of the client. That is what occurred in the next case, involving

Scroll to Top