Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity: Prevailing Cross-Complainant Entitled To $87,024.91 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs From Cross-Defendant In Customer Suit Defense Costs

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

Terms Of The Indemnity Did For Recovery Of Fees And Costs From Cross-Defendant.             The 2/8 DCA, in ZIM American Integrated Shipping Services, Co. v. GES Logistics, Inc., Case No. B292259 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 11, 2019) (unpublished), had no trouble interpreting the contractual interpretation reached by a trial judge below.  What happened is […]

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Nonsignatory Prevailing Parties, Alleged To Be Alter Egos, Were Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause When They Beat The Alter Ego Allegations

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Reynolds Was Controlling, Not Blickman Turkus.             What happened in Kaddu, Inc. v. Gauze, Case No. H045090 (6th Dist. Nov. 27, 2019) (unpublished) is that a cross-complainant filed a contractually-based cross-complaint against nonsignatory cross-defendants where they were alleged to be alter egos of the primary cross-defendant.  Cross-complainant sought attorney’s fees, in addition to damages, based

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Collections Fees/Costs Provision In A Preprinted Form Which Was Incorporated In The Parties’ Bargain Provided Fee Entitlement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fees Are Costs, And Do Not Have To Be Pled/Proven Unless In A Third Party Tort or Brandt Situation.             Ya know, fee entitlement under a contractual fees clause can be based on very simple language set forth in a preprinted form.  In Ozuna Electric Co., Inc. v. Integrated Process Control Engineering, Inc., Case No.

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717, Settlement: Reasonable Discretion Exercised In Awarding Defendant Only 20% Of Requested $177,712 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

The Legal Principles Of Civil Code Section 1717 and Santisas Governed.             Both parties appealed the fee results in Rusnak/South Bay v. Glukel Group, Case No. B286513 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2019) involving a dispute between landlord and tenant – with tenant plaintiff advancing contract and tort claims against landlord.         

Fee Clause Interpretation, Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Subhauler Winning Net Judgment Of $19,113.84 Was Properly Awarded Contractual Fees Of $100,415

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Contractual Fees Do Not Have To Be Proportional And Unsuccessful Efforts Can Be Awarded.             In Cheema v. L.S. Trucking, Inc., Case Nos. A150234/A151044 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 17, 2019) (published), plaintiff, a subhauler for defendant trucking company, won affirmative recovery in the form of a net judgment of $19,113.84.  There was a broad

Fee Clause Interpretation: Plaintiff Obtaining Breach Of Contract Damages In Court Lawsuit Was Not Entitled To Fee Recovery, Because Fees Clause Only Applied To Arbitration Results

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Contractual Interpretation Of Fees Clause So Confirmed.            A plaintiff sued and obtained contractual breach damages of $317,512, but really wanted to obtain prevailing party fees under a contractual fees clause.  The trial court did not bite, and the same too for the appellate court in SPAP Company, LLC v. Clinical Products, LLC, Case No.

Fee Clause Interpretation, Landlord/Tenant: Guarantor Limitation Of Liability Provision Did Not Limit Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Guaranty Limitation Applied Only To Damages, Not To Attorney’s Fees Which Are Costs Instead.             In Valencia Gateway Retail IV, LLC v. Woltman, Case No. B288726 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 20, 2019) (unpublished), two defendant guarantors of a breached lease argued that a guaranty liability limitation—“equal to six months’ charges due under the lease”

Deeds Of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrow Nature Of Lender Fee Clauses In Promissory Note And Deed Of Trust Did Not Allow Fee Recovery To Lender Based On Wrongful Foreclosure Tort Claims

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Broader Fee Clauses Might Have Resulted In A Different Conclusion!             Byun v. Loma Linda University, Case No. E069549 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 25, 2019) (unpublished), although unpublished, does offer some drafting tips to lenders where wrongful foreclosure cases are brought by borrowers, who prevail and then want to recoup some attorney’s fees.             

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity: Narrow Fee Clause, Allowing Recovery In Arbitration Only, Did Not Confer Fee Recovery For Fees Relating To Litigation

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

Indemnity Clause Gave No Basis For Fee Recovery, Because It Was Unilateral In Favor Of Unsuccessful Party, Not Allowing For Fee Entitlement–$628,587.50 In Fees Went Away!             In Club Acacia Community Assn. v. Professional Community Management of California, Inc., Case No. G056313 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 11, 2019) (unpublished), a long-time dispute between an

Fee Clause Interpretation: “Collection Costs” Fees Clause Of A Narrow Nature Was Interpreted Against Drafting Party And Did Not Include Fees For Defending Counterclaims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Award Remanded For A Restudy, But A 50% Reduction For Overlitigation By Prevailing Party Likely Stands On Remand.            To take us back to law school days, contra proferentem is Latin for interpreting a contract against the drafter.  That principle was at play in contractual interpretation of the scope of a lender fees clause

Scroll to Top