Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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Variety Of Costs, Fee Entitlement, And Lodestar Issues Explored In This Unpublished Opinion.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 Aug. 24, 2021) (unpublished) was a Los Angeles-venued case which produced a global settlement complete with a provision for certain parties to bear attorney’s fees and costs by class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 B295665/B303317 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 26, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff buyers won a fraudulent concealment claim against defendant seller/affiliates.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.

Fee Clause Interpretation, Retainer Agreements, Section 1717: Postjudgment Order Awarding Attorney $1,232,735 In § 1717 Fees And Costs Incurred Defending Against Former Client’s Tort And Contractual Claims And Cross-Claim For Unpaid Fees Affirmed

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Retainer Agreement’s Broadly-Worded Fee Provision Allowed For Recovery Of Fees For Attorney’s Defense Of All Claims By Former Client, Including Tort Claims – The Defense Of Which Were Necessary To Defeat The Contractual Claim.             In Singh v. Molnar, Case No. B303366 (2d Dist., Div. 7 April 30, 2021) (unpublished), defendant attorney was awarded $1,232,735

Deeds Of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation: Third District Affirms $133,176.15 Fees And Costs Award To Lender Defeating Plaintiff’s Lawsuit For Wrongful Foreclosure, Concealment And Breach Of Contract

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee-Shifting Provisions In The Parties’ Loan Documents Entitled Prevailing Lender To Fees For Defending Foreclosure And Enforcing Plaintiff’s Debt Obligation, And Were Worded Broadly Enough To Encompass Both Contract And Tort Causes Of Action.             In Simon v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. C086688 (3d Dist. April 12, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff sued Wells Fargo

Fee Clause Interpretation, Landlord/Tenant: $93,913.85 Fee Award In Favor Of Residential Defendant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Conversion Claim Arose From The Lease, With Other Arguments Forfeited On Appeal.             Where appellants fail to make arguments at the trial court level or in an appellant’s opening brief, they may be subject to having their challenges forfeited on appeal.  That largely happened in Ghannoum v. Sevier, Case No. B304026 (2d Dist., Div. 2

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $795,728 Fee Award To Litigant Affirmed On Appeal Based On Broad Stock Purchase Agreement Fees Clause, But $926,170 Fee Request Properly Denied As Untimely As Well As Not Allowed Under Promissory Notes Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

In The End, This Dispute Was Driven By The Fee Clauses “Four Corner” Interpretation.             Justice Fybel, as the authoring justice in Dohr v. Lintz, Case Nos. G056144/G058796 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 24, 2021) (unpublished), was faced with consolidated appeals where a $795,728 fee award was trying to be sustained and where a $926,170

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717, Unlicensed Contractor: Section 1717 Fees Of $231,834 To Defendant Prevailing Against Statutory Claims Affirmed “Because Of” Broad Fee Provision In Parties’ Contract

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Parties’ Fee Provision Encompassed Tort and Statutory Causes Of Action Commenced “Because Of” An Alleged Breach Of Contract.             In San Francisco CDC LLC v. Webcor Construction L.P., Case Nos. A156669/A157650 (1st Dist., Div. 1 March 19, 2001) (published), plaintiff paid defendants approximately $144 million for the construction of a hotel in San Francisco.  Eight

Scroll to Top