Matter Goes On Between Landlord And Tenant, Although Tenant Prevailed, Based On A Partial Appellate Reversal. In Wilshire West Medical Tower, LLC v. Karimi, Case Nos. B347841 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2026) (unpublished), tenants defensed a landlord and property manager, even though the appellate court reversed on some grounds. The lower
Section 1717 Was Not Preempted By Business And Professions Code Section 809.1, With Plaintiff’s Wife Not Liable For Fees And With Reductions In Fees Sustained On Appeal. A plethora of fee issues were addressed in Sujan v. UHS Corona, Inc., Case No. E084185 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 16, 2026) (published) after the lower and appellate courts
Fee Award Was $50,000, A Contractually Capped Amount, Even Though Defendants’ Counsel Expended $73,865 In Fees. In SM 10000 Property, LLC v. Chakchay, Case No. B350752 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 9, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against defendant signatory tenant and two other non-signatory tenants named as occupants. The lower court
One Defendant Was Found To Forfeit All Rights Under The Lease On Summary Adjudication, And The Other Was Not A Lease Signatory. In Morales v. Wang, Case No. B346779 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 12, 2026) (unpublished), after plaintiffs accepted a defense CCP § 998 offer which was silent on attorney’s fees, plaintiffs moved for
Fee Clause Broadly Encompassed Any Dispute Resulting In Litigation, Executives/Directors Were Fee Clause Nonsignatories Entitled To Fees, And No Apportionment Was Needed Given Breadth Of Fees Clause. In Sugarman v. Benett, Case No. B338610 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 3, 2026) (unpublished), there was contentious, aggressive litigation involving plaintiff and his trust (plaintiff being a
Santisas, Unilateral Fee-Shifting, And Section 1717 Principles Led To The Reversal. Cross-complainants voluntarily dismissed their cross-complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, disgorgement, Business and Professions Code section 7160 fraudulent inducement to enter a contract, and unjust enrichment as against two individual cross-defendants alleged to be
In Fact, Because He Prevailed, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fees Against One Set Of Defendants, But Not A Nonsignatory Because He Only Brought Tort Claims. Appeals, although the odds are against them, can sometimes result in a reversal of fortune. That did occur in Moses v. Rok Drinks, Ltd., Case No. B339392 (2d Dist., Div.
$150,000 Was The Fee Award Affirmed In Lenders’ Favor As Prevailing Cross-Defendants. Hom v. Petrou, Case No. A161770 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 3, 2021) (published) involved a $150,000 contractual attorney’s fees award in favor of lenders obtaining a dismissal of a cross-complaint alleging primarily tort claims. The 1/4 DCA affirmed, holding that there
$430,000 In Fees Awarded Against Signatory LLC, But Not Against Losing Individual Plaintiff. For a non-prevailing nonsignatory party to be exposed to fees, there must be some substantial link to the underlying contract involving signatory parties—such as the nonsignatory being a third-party beneficiary of a contract. (Real Property Services Corp. v. City of Pasadena,
Arbitration Was Properly Ordered Because The Claims Between Client And The Two Law Firms Arose Out Of The Underlying Retainer And Arbitration Agreements Client Signed With The First Law Firm. Client retained a law firm to represent her in an ongoing dissolution action – signing a Retainer Agreement and a binding Arbitration Agreement. During
