Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Interpretation, POOF! After A Merits Reversal, Language Of The Fees Clause Meant That The Reversed Party Did Not Prevail

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

Fee Clauses Without Prevailing Party Language Have Such A Condition Implied.             Drink Tank Ventures, LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd., Case Nos. B29881/B302215 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 10, 2021) (published) is an interesting case where a “prevailing party” had its intentional interference claim reversed as a matter of law.  At the […]

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation, Landlord/Tenant: 1/3 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Denial Of Attorney Fees To Prevailing Tenant

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Fees Incurred For The Court Proceedings Were Part Of The Arbitration Process Called For In The Lease For Resolving Fair Market Rent Value And Not Recoverable Under The Prevailing Party Provision Which Applied To An Action Involving A Breach Of The Contract Or Determination of Rights             In California Union Square L.P. v. Saks

Fee Clause Interpretation, Reasonableness Of Fees: Attorney Awarded Prior Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Denied “Second Bite” Request For Civil Code § 1717 Additional Fees Based On Prior Representations Made To Court Of Appeal On Reasonableness Of Work

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Also, Fee Clause With “Incurred” Language Means That Fees Did Need To Be Incurred.             The result in Korff v. Goodrich, Case No. A160917 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 27, 2021) (unpublished) shows the wisdom in the saying “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered,” coined by Rubbery Figures, a satirical rubber puppet series screened in

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Where Cross-Complaint Did Not Involve Any Enforcement Or Promise Breaches Of A Purchase Agreement With A Fees Clause, Attorney’s Fees Lacked Any Entitlement Basis

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717 Did Not Change The Analysis, Because The Scope Of The Fee Clause Can Only Relate To Contractual Claims—Meaning CCP § 1021 Must First Be Overcome.             Otay Land Co., LLC v. U.E. Limited LLC, Case No. D077274 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 20, 2021) (unpublished) reminds us that Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity

Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation: Wife Properly Allowed Section 217 Sanctions Against Husband For Divorce Decree Enforcement Purposes

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

However, Lower Court Properly Denied Her Fees On Husband’s Prior Efforts To Set Aside The Martial Settlement Agreement.             In Marriage of Mirza, Case Nos. G057613 et seq. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 1, 2021) (unpublished), husband and wife entered into a marital settlement agreement and divorce decree based upon the agreement.  Husband then attempted

Costs, Deadlines, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar: L.A. Groundwater Case Fee And Costs Awards Remanded For A Revisit By The Fifth District

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar

Variety Of Costs, Fee Entitlement, And Lodestar Issues Explored In This Unpublished Opinion.             Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases, Case No. F083138 (5th Dist. Aug. 24, 2021) (unpublished) was a Los Angeles-venued case which produced a global settlement complete with a provision for certain parties to bear attorney’s fees and costs by class counsel.  Class counsel

Construction, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity, Insurance: Subcontractors Not Liable For Gen. Developer Defense Fees Not Relating To Their Work, And Equitable Subrogation Action Fees For Developer Not Recoverable Under Ambiguous Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Insurance

At The End, Joint/Several Liability Theory On The First Issue Was Rejected, And Ambiguity Construed Against Developer Drafter On The Second Issue.             This next post might interest construction and insurance practitioners, although it involves the interesting intersection of contractual and insurance equitable subrogation issues—with complexities teeming!             In Berg v. Pulte Home Corp., Case

Costs, Deadlines, Fee Clause Interpretation: Lender Defending Against Borrower’s Attempts To Enjoin Eventual Nonjudicial Foreclosure Properly Awarded $9.235 Million In Fees

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

However, Costs Award Of $332,704.20 Reversed For Failure To Timely File A Costs Memorandum, Although The Appellate Court Did Indicate Lower Court Could Entertain CCP § 473 Default Motion Based On Surprise If Lender Wanted To Renew Costs Issue.             This next case, Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc., Case Nos.

Fee Clause Interpretation: “Arising Out Of” Language In Escrow Agreement Did Encompass Fraudulent Concealment Victory By Plaintiff Buyers Against Defendant Seller And Affiliates

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

$412,500 Fee Award Under Escrow Fees Contract Clause Affirmed On Appeal.             In Kim v. Lee, Case Nos. B295665/B303317 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 26, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff buyers won a fraudulent concealment claim against defendant seller/affiliates.  The buyers then moved for an attorney’s fees award under a broad escrow fees clause containing “arising out

Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: Post-Settlement Fee Efforts Were Not Compensable Under Specifically Crafted Fees Clause Agreed To By The Parties

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

About $2.2 Million In Fees, Plus Multiplier, Denied To Plaintiff In Supplemental Fee Request.             Willis v. L.A. County Waterworks Dist. No. 40, Case No. F082766 (5th Dist. May 26, 2021) (unpublished) is an example of where a carefully crafted fees clause in a settlement agreement may govern supplemental fee requests by a claiming party.

Scroll to Top